• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Linq 2013 session_red_1_kameas

Linq 2013 session_red_1_kameas






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 16

http://www.learning-innovations.eu 16



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Linq 2013 session_red_1_kameas Linq 2013 session_red_1_kameas Presentation Transcript

    • A Life-Cycle Model forthe Quality Evaluationof Educational ContentA. Kameas A. Stefani
    • Higher Education challenges A new stage is set for the transition to thepaperless University; Education Institutions’ dual role:publishers and distributors of educationalcontent. Challenge: Standardization of designand production procedures
    • Research Challenge and Methodology:Summary Research question how to design digital educational content suitable for open and distance learning based on formal Q&A practices. Methodology a top-down analysis of Q&A needs through thedefinition of a content life-cycle model; a bottom-up synthesis of a standard-like hierarchythrough the definition of certification guidelines. Goal: to map needs, stakeholders, and quality attributes toquality characteristics, sub-characteristics and metricsof an ISO-like standard.
    • Digital Educational Content We refer to‘DigitalEducationalContent’ in theform of:
    • State of the Art (1/3)
    • State of the Art (2/3)
    • State of the Art (3/3)
    • Research challenges (1/2) Educational content and learning processesare closely interconnected. There should exist specifications that allow: compatibility with the educational processes, to achieve the maximum out of the learningoutcomes, reduction of costs during content use (ideallywithout compromising educational quality), reuse of the content.
    • Research challenges (2/2) There is a need for a clear grouping of processes (what should be done), content (to what) and stakeholders (by whom); Design a quality life cycle (QLC) for educationalcontent: adoption of (some) characteristics of qualitystandards (formality), eliciting good practices through the application ofbenchmarking methods (practicality), coverage of all types of educational content(completeness).
    • QLC Design Methodology:insights What to measure from phase to phase? diverse nature: educational, pedagogical and technical facets.numerous parameters: functionality, educational suitability,educational correctness, medium of content delivery… Different aspects must be assessed through differentmethods/tools. What is the best method to asses which part? How to measure it? Quality: is neither measurable nor strictly defined (in the fieldof distance education) model quality, quality assurance procedures, compliance andquality-of-use.
    • QLC Development Methodology:insightsThe development of QLC requires both Process View: running a project with analysis,design and development phases - PMBOK Data View producing a product – ISO standards. E.g. Product lifecycle according to PMBOK
    • Top-Down step: The Life cycleModel
    • Bottom-up Approach: HOUexperience Guidelines/Best Practises derived from HOUexperience: Use of standards ISO9001:2008 and ELOT:1429; 12 years of formally applying Q&A in teachingpractises and content; HOU as a publisher: 300 books, 500h of video-lectures; Several GB of digital content (Wikis, hypertext,ebooks) by 2015; Multi-step quality control based on in-breedmethods
    • Bottom-up Approach: guidelines Quality Control practical rules used by life-cycle stakeholders (authors/evaluators/QCexperts) for the assessment and certification The certification guide includes 11 guidelines relating to content accuracy, expression, educationalfeedback and self-assessment, completeness, scientificaccuracy, readability, motivation for further reading andpersonal research, clarity of expression and up-to-dateness.
    • Bottom-up Approach: example (1/3)
    • Bottom-up Approach: example (2/3)
    • Bottom-up Approach: example (3/3)
    • Towards a new Quality Model Initial results have produced a dual, data and processstandard with 8 quality characteristics, 30 sub-characteristics and 72 metrics Future work: Verificationand Validation Tool Validate standard
    • Thank you for your Attention!