scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book ChapterDOI

E-Learning Standards: Beyond Technical Standards to Guides for Professional Practice

01 Jan 2011-pp 170-192
TL;DR: Standards and standardization are seen positively as tools for simplifying and AbstrAct, but when one assesses the standards available it is clear that if practitioners are seeking standards as guides for professional practice in e-learning they are not offered a wide selection of choices unless their interests run to interoperability or resource discovery.
Abstract: Tanenbaum’s wry observation on standards “The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from” (Tanenbaum, 1981, p. 221) is an almost obligatory quote in papers that consider the role of standards in e-learning and higher education. However, when one assesses the standards available (Marshall, 2004) it is clear that if practitioners are seeking standards as guides for professional practice in e-learning they are not offered a wide selection of choices unless their interests run to interoperability or resource discovery. Standards and standardization, rather than being seen positively as tools for simplifying and AbstrAct
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

2,134 citations

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

References
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

32,981 citations

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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The capability maturity model (CMM), developed to present sets of recommended practices in a number of key process areas that have been shown to enhance software-development and maintenance capability, is discussed.
Abstract: The capability maturity model (CMM), developed to present sets of recommended practices in a number of key process areas that have been shown to enhance software-development and maintenance capability, is discussed. The CMM was designed to help developers select process-improvement strategies by determining their current process maturity and identifying the issues most critical to improving their software quality and process. The initial release of the CMM, version 1.0, was reviewed and used by the software community during 1991 and 1992. A workshop on CMM 1.0, held in April 1992, was attended by about 200 software professionals. The current version of the CMM is the result of the feedback from that workshop and ongoing feedback from the software community. The technical report that describes version 1.1. is summarised. >

1,179 citations