Developing Quality in E-Learning: A Framework in Three Parts
10 Jul 2009-Quality Assurance in Education (Emerald Group Publishing Limited)-Vol. 17, Iss: 3, pp 250-263
TL;DR: The features that distinguish the new framework from existing models are described and it is explained how these differences are tailored to develop the e‐learning design skills of academic staff and to encourage greater engagement with e‐ learning quality initiatives across the university.
Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce and describe the features of a new e‐learning quality framework developed for a large multi‐campus university. The framework is explicitly designed to improve the quality of e‐learning sites and the quality of online student learning, by developing the skills of the academics who design the sites.Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper. It examines a range of existing models and literature on evaluative frameworks in e‐learning and positions the new framework within that context. It describes the features that distinguish the new framework from existing models and explains how these differences are tailored to develop the e‐learning design skills of academic staff and to encourage greater engagement with e‐learning quality initiatives across the university.Findings – The paper identifies several features of the new framework that differ from other models and explains the inclusion of these features in terms of the support they provide fo...
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 1989
TL;DR: Chickering is a Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at Memphis State University and a Visiting Professor at George Mason University as mentioned in this paper, and Gamson is a sociologist who holds appointments at the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, and in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at University of Michigan.
Abstract: Arthur Chickering is Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at Memphis State University. On leave from the Directorship of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Memphis State, he is Visiting Professor at George Mason University. Zelda Gamson is a sociologist who holds appointments at the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan.
488 citations
TL;DR: A comprehensive model has been developed which provides a holistic picture and identifies different levels of success related to a broad range of success determinants and was found to be the determinants of e-learning use.
484 citations
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: Tutkimuksen et al. as mentioned in this paper presented a qualitative, multiple-case-study research with single and cross-case analysis focusing on benchmarking e-learning in higher education.
Abstract: Higher education is facing a range of major challenges during the twenty-first century. Personalised, flexible and open learning are considered among the driving forces, thus, issues of quality must be urgently addressed.This qualitative, multiple-case-study research with single and cross-case analysis focuses on benchmarking e-learning in higher education. The results of this study include providing conceptual lenses with which to see, discuss and perceive the complexity of benchmarking e-learning in higher education in extended, stretched and boundless learning environments. It has become obvious through the research that there is a need for new frames of reference for quality in e-learning. The choice of theoretical foundations for benchmarking e-learning will impact the consequences of accomplishing and selecting benchmarks.This research provides directions and recommendations for the future regarding how to accomplish benchmarking e-learning in extended learning environments in which students can study, work and live independently of time and space with global resources at their disposal in lifelong learning environments. The greatest challenge identified in this study for integrating benchmarking e-learning into general quality assurance is the fact that the required changes related to and demanded for e-learning are not fully understood. The research shows that benchmarking as a method will have a significant impact on ordinary quality assurance in higher education.This doctoral dissertation revealed challenges to integrate external quality audits and internally driven benchmarking. The studies have likewise revealed the need for methodological changes by quality assurance bodies and authorities carrying out audit and accreditation for integrating e-learning into quality assurance, as well as the need to fully understand the complexity and the special characteristics of e-learning. Probably, the challenge lies not with the system, success factors or benchmarks but in the lack of knowledge and experience of e-learning systems amongst those charged with implementation. The concept benchlearning was introduced as part of benchmarking exercises.Popular Abstract in FinnishYliopistokoulutus on talla vuosisadalla suurien haasteiden edessa. Yksilollinen, joustava ja avoin opetus ovat tarkeimpia kehitysta ajavia voimia. Tassa ymparistossa opetuksen laatuvaatimukset ovat tarkeita. Tama laadullinen monitapaustutkimus keskittyy e-lerningin benchmarkkaukseen yliopistoissa. Tutkimuksen tulokset tarjoavat kasitteellisia linsseja, joiden avulla voidaan keskustella ja ymmartaa e-lerningin benchmarkkauksen kompleksisuutta avoimessa oppimisymparistossa. Tutkimus on osoittanut, etta tarvitaan uusia viitekehyksia e-learningin laadun varmistamiseen. Benchmarkkausta kaytettaessa teoreettisen perustan valinta vaikuttaa kaytannon toteutukseen ja vertailukohteiden valintaan. Tutkimus tarjoaa vinkkeja ja suosituksia, miten e-learningin benchmarkkausta tulisi toteuttaa yliopistoissa, joissa oppilaat opiskelevat avoimessa ymparistossa ja voivat tyoskennella ja elaa ajasta ja paikasta riippumatta siten, etta heilla on kaytettavissa globaalit resurssit elinikaiseen oppimiseen. Tutkimuksessa havaittiin, etta suurin haaste liittyy siihen, miten e-learningin bechmarkkaus giitetaan yliopistojen yleiseen laatujarjestelmaan. Tata integraatiota ei nykyisin taysin ymmarreta. Tutkimus osoittaa, etta benchmarkkausmenetelmalla on merkittava vaikutus yliopistojen yleiseen laadunvarmistamiseen. Tutkimus osoittaa, etta on haastavaa integroida sisaisesti organisoitu benchmarkkaus ulkoisiin laatuauditointeihin. Laatuauditointeja jarjestavien tahojen ja auditointeja seka akreditointeja suorittavien viranomaisten tulee tehda metodologisia muutoksia toimintaansa, jotta e-learning voidaan integroida laatujarjestelmiin. E-learningin kompleksisuus ja erityispiirteet tulisi myosymmartaa. Varsinaiset haasteet eivat niinkaan ole jarjestelmassa, sen menestystekijoissa tai benchmarkeisssa vaan siina, etta paattajilla ja kayttoonottajilla on liian vahan tietoa ja kokemusta elearningista. Kasite benchlearning nousi esille tassa vaitostutkimuksessa kuvaamaan problematiikkaa. (Less)
40 citations
15 Dec 2017
TL;DR: A pragmatic mixed-model philosophy was adopted and an adequate set of quality indicators that can be used by higher education institutions to measure the overall quality of an e-learning system effectively were found.
Abstract: Purpose E-learning is becoming mainstream due to its accessibility, state-of-the-art learning, training ease and cost effectiveness. However, the poor quality of e-learning systems is one of the major causes of several failures reported. Moreover, this arena lacks well-defined quality assessment measures. Hence, it is quite difficult to measure the overall quality of an e-learning system effectively. Design/methodology/approach A pragmatic mixed-model philosophy was adopted for this study. A systematic literature review was performed to identify existing e-learning quality models and frameworks. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with e-learning experts following empirical investigations to identify the crucial quality characteristics of e-learning systems. Various statistical tests like Principal Component Analysis, Logistic Regression, Chi-square and Analysis of Means were applied to analyze the empirical data. These led to an adequate set of quality indicators that can be used by higher educatio...
35 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed a reliable and valid e-learning quality measurement scales from the learner as well as faculty perspectives in Indian context. But there is paucity of research pertaining to elearning quality scale development and validation from the learners and faculty perspective.
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to develop a reliable and valid e-learning quality measurement scales from the learner as well as faculty perspectives in Indian context. Exploratory factor analysis followed by confirmatory factor analysis was done which is presented in two forms; covariance model and the structural model. The covariance model shows that the factors namely collaboration, industry acceptance and value addition are important from the learner’s point of view whereas the factors namely transparency in assessment, technical know-how and engagement (from students) are important from faculty point of view. Factors namely course content and design structures (technology/website design) are found equally important for learner’s as well as faculty’s perspective. The structural models validate the previously extracted factors along with their indicators. The findings of this study validate the long held belief that e-learning quality is a multidimensional construct and serves as a critical success factor. The proposed scale will help in identifying issues that contribute towards e-learning quality in Indian context and thereby formulating strategies accordingly, resulting in efficient (in terms of cost) and effective (outcomes) e-learning practices, which is the necessity of the hour for the economic development of the country. A fair amount of literature on e-learning dealt with identifying factors explaining the constructs of quality, perceived value and satisfaction. But there is paucity of research pertaining to e-learning quality scale development and validation from the learner as well as faculty perspective. This study is an attempt to bridge this gap in the existing literature. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2012.04.036
28 citations
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1999
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a framework for the generation of ILOs for a course by identifying the kind of knowledge to be learned (declarative or functioning) and the level of understanding or performance to be achieved.
Abstract: generalize create, solve unseen problems, extrapolate to unknown domains 22831.indb 124 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 125 • the verb at the appropriate level of understanding or of performance intended; • the topic content the verb is meant to address, the object of the verb in other words; • the context of the content discipline in which the verb is to be deployed. The ILOs for the course The Nature of Teaching and Learning illustrate these points: 1 Explain why a particular course topic is important to teaching. 2 Apply a course topic to your own teaching. 3 Refl ect on your teaching in terms of a working theory you have gained from the course. 4 Evaluate a situation that has gone wrong and apply a solution. The fi rst refers to declarative knowledge: the students have to reach a level of understanding that requires them to explain something, not just describe or list it: the latter only display multistructural levels of understanding, but explaining requires students to be able to relate the topic to the context of teaching and is at a relational level of understanding. The second is a functioning knowledge example also at the relational level as it requires a level of understanding that enables the student to apply the topic to teaching. The other two are also about functioning knowledge and should be at the relational to extended abstract level of understanding, depending on the originality of the student’s response. The content in (3) is the student’s own working theory and the context the student’s own teaching, and in (4), the content is the theory used in evaluating and the context the problematic situation in teaching. As a note on the number of ILOs per course, we stated earlier that there should be no more fi ve or six ILOs for any course, even though there may be up to ten topics that need addressing. The answer is to write integrating ILOs that address several topics, or, as in ILOs (1) and (2) above, the ILO allows the student to select just one topic for demonstrating ability to achieve the ILO. Another thing to watch out for are redundant ILOs, such as ‘Describe and explain . . .’. ‘Describe’ is redundant because if the student can explain the topic, he or she can certainly describe it. The other matter one should keep in mind at this stage is that desirable but unintended outcomes, or outcomes unforeseen by the teacher, may emerge. This is the nature of extended abstract responses by the student, and they will be accounted for in the normal assessment, but others may simply be things that the student sees as important and relevant learning. This matter becomes a practical issue during assessment, and we address it in Chapter 10. You should now be in a position to design and write your own ILOs for a course you are teaching (Task 7.1). 22831.indb 125 6/15/11 2:11 PM 126 Designing constructively aligned outcomes-based teaching and learning Task 7.1 Writing course ILOs Take a course that you are teaching. Consider the course aim and write the course ILOs by identifying: a the kind of knowledge to be learned (declarative or functioning). b the content or topic to be learned. c the level of understanding or performance to be achieved. d any particular context in which the outcome verb is to be enacted. The following grid may be a useful framework to help you think. Kind of knowledge Level of Content topic Context Declar/function understanding (outcome verb) ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Now go across the rows and write out the course ILOs by stating the intended level of understanding or performance (outcome verb), topic and the context in which the verb is to be enacted. There is no need to include the kind of knowledge in the ILO as that is defi ned by the verb(s) you use. To recap an example of a course ILO from our course The Nature of Teaching and Learning : Students should be able to: Refl ect (level of understanding and performance) on your teaching (context) in terms of a working theory you have gained from the course (content). Now write your course ILOs. Students should be able to: ILO1: _______________________________________________________ ILO2: _______________________________________________________ ILO3: _______________________________________________________ 22831.indb 126 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 127 Aligning ILOs at three levels: curriculum mapping Now that we have written the course ILOs, we have the task of checking to see that the three levels of intended outcomes, graduate, programme and course, are aligned. We can achieve this by curriculum mapping (Huet et al. 2009), which is a systematic means of ensuring alignment between programme ILOs and graduate outcomes, and course ILOs and programme ILOs. Graduate outcomes and programme ILOs Table 7.4 shows a simply way of checking the alignment between graduate outcomes and programme ILOs. The table is a device to ensure that the match between programme ILOs and graduate outcomes has at least been considered. Programme ILOs should not be forced to match graduate outcomes that don’t belong in the programme. Because of the different natures of different disciplines or professions, different programmes may have different emphases in addressing the graduate outcomes. It is not necessary that every programme should address all graduate outcomes to the same extent because some may not be relevant to the programme. Programme ILOs are simply the reasons that the programme is being taught, which is a matter of professional and academic judgment. However, university policy will prevail on this. Task 7.2 parallels Table 7.4: it asks you to align programme ILOs with the graduate outcomes of your university, if it has any. If the programme ILOs ILO4: _______________________________________________________ ILO5:_______________________________________________________ ILO6:_______________________________________________________ Review the ILOs to see whether: a the kind of knowledge, content and level of understanding or performance are relevant to achieve the course aim. b they cover all the main reasons for teaching the course. c they are clearly written, especially in identifying the level of understanding or performance to be achieved by the students, and the context (if appropriate). d the number is manageable for designing aligned teaching/learning activities and assessment tasks. How does this new set of course ILOs compare to your existing course ‘objectives’? Does the existing set need to be rewritten? 22831.indb 127 6/15/11 2:11 PM 128 Designing constructively aligned outcomes-based teaching and learning haven’t yet been articulated, discuss them with the programme coordinator and derive a set, then match them with the graduate outcomes. This should give you a clearer idea of how graduate outcomes can suitably be addressed in your teaching. How does your attempt gel with your university’s policy on this? Gelade and Fursenko (2007) also describe a tool for systematically mapping courses and programmes for graduate outcomes. Task 7.2 Aligning programme ILOs with graduate outcomes 1 Take a programme in which you are teaching and either list the programme ILOs if they are already articulated or, if they are not, sit down with the programme coordinator or programme committee chairperson and fi rst write the aims of the programme and a list of programme ILOs that meet those aims. 2 What are the graduate outcomes of your university? List them in the left-hand column in the grid below. 3 In the right-hand column list the programme ILOs that would address the graduate outcomes. Are all graduate outcomes addressed somewhere? Which are not? Does it matter?’ Graduate outcomes Programme ILO 1 2 etc. Table 7.4 An example of aligning programme ILOs with graduate outcomes Graduate outcomes Programme ILO Competent in professional Analyse and apply principles to real-life practice accounting situations Communicate effectively Communicate as a professional with clients and colleagues in real-life accounting situations Teamwork Operate effectively and ethically as a team member in real-life accounting situations Ethical professional As above 22831.indb 128 6/15/11 2:11 PM Designing intended learning outcomes 129 Programme ILOs and course ILOs The next level of alignment is between the programme and the course ILOs. As each programme is served by its constituent courses, it is important that, when aligning course ILOs to the programme ILOs, the course ILOs in total address all aspects of the programme ILOs. Often a programme ILO will be addressed by several courses, from different and increasingly more complex angles. You may attempt this in Task 7.3. Task 7.3 Aligning course ILOs with programme ILOs For individual teachers 1 List the programme ILOs of the programme. 2 List the course ILOs of the courses that you are teaching in a given programme. 3 Consider what programme ILO(s) each of the course ILOs addresses in the following table. Programme ILOs Course 1 ILOs Course 2 ILOs Course 3 ILOs
6,414 citations
"Developing Quality in E-Learning: A..." refers background in this paper
...The central concepts include, for example, an understanding of constructive alignment ( Biggs and Tang, 2007...
[...]
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Chickering is a Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at Memphis State University and a Visiting Professor at George Mason University as discussed by the authors, and Gamson is a sociologist who holds appointments at the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, and in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at University of Michigan.
Abstract: Arthur Chickering is Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at Memphis State University. On leave from the Directorship of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Memphis State, he is Visiting Professor at George Mason University. Zelda Gamson is a sociologist who holds appointments at the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan.
4,726 citations
01 Mar 1987
TL;DR: Chickering is a Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at Memphis State University and a Visiting Professor at George Mason University as mentioned in this paper, and Gamson is a sociologist who holds appointments at the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, and in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at University of Michigan.
Abstract: Arthur Chickering is Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at Memphis State University. On leave from the Directorship of the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Memphis State, he is Visiting Professor at George Mason University. Zelda Gamson is a sociologist who holds appointments at the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan.
3,486 citations
Book•
28 Feb 2011
TL;DR: The second edition of E-Learning in the 21st Century as mentioned in this paper provides a coherent, comprehensive, and empirically-based framework for understanding e-learning in higher education and provides practical models that educators can use to realize the full potential of elearning.
Abstract: The second edition of E-Learning in the 21st Century provides a coherent, comprehensive, and empirically-based framework for understanding e-learning in higher education Garrison draws on his decades of experience and extensive research in the field to explore the technological, pedagogical, and organizational implications of e-learning Most importantly, he provides practical models that educators can use to realize the full potential of e-learning This book is unique in that it focuses less on the long list ever-evolving technologies and more on the search for an understanding of these technologies from an educational perspective The second edition has been fully revised and updated throughout and includes discussions of social media and mobile learning applications as well as other emerging technologies in todays classrooms This book is an invaluable resource for courses on e-learning in higher education as well as for researchers, practitioners and senior administrators looking for guidance on how to successfully adopt e-learning in their institutions
2,177 citations
Book•
21 Feb 2003
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss their extensive research from technological, pedagogical and organizational perspectives in order to create practical models and release the full potential of e-learning This in-depth understanding will give direction and guidance to educators who wish to facilitate critical discourse and higher-order learning through the use of electronic technologies in a networked learning context
Abstract: From the Publisher:
There is a technological revolution taking place in higher education The growth of 'e-learning' is being described as explosive, unprecedented and disruptive E-Learning in the 21st Century provides a framework for understanding the application and characteristics of e-learning in higher education The authors discuss their extensive research from technological, pedagogical and organizational perspectives in order to create practical models and release the full potential of e-learning This in-depth understanding will give direction and guidance to educators who wish to facilitate critical discourse and higher-order learning through the use of electronic technologies in a networked learning context
1,871 citations