This document discusses establishing a systematic quality development process for e-learning at Munich University of Applied Sciences. It presents the challenges of developing a quality model given the complex stakeholder interests. It reviews existing quality management systems like the Learner-Oriented Quality Certification and ISO 29990 standards and adapts them to develop Munich University's own quality concept. This concept focuses on evaluation indicators, documenting work processes, and counseling standards. While this allows for continuous improvement, the process of developing and aligning the concept involved balancing different perspectives and priorities with limited resources.

1. Establishing Systematic Quality Development
for E-Learning in Higher Education:
Challenges, Initial Concepts and Process Reflection
Patricia Arnold, Martin Lu Kolbinger
Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany
INTED 2013, Valencia, Spain

2. Agenda
1. Context – E-Learning Support at MUAS
2. Challenge of Systematic Quality Development
3. Models for Quality Management (KQB, ISO 29990)
4. MUAS Quality Model
5. Critical Assessment
Slide 2
INTED 2013
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu

3. Context
Munich University of Applied Sciences (MUAS)
• 17.500 students
• 1250 faculty / adjunct faculty
• 72 bachelor and master programs
• 14 different departments
• 3 different sites spread over Munich
Slide 3
INTED 2013
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu

4. E-Learning at MUAS
E-learning as blended learning to enhance face-to-face tuition / one
onle degree programm BA Social Work (basa-online)
• E-learning as pioneers‘ work
• Highly different approaches & different acceptance by
2005/08 various departments
• Need for more support and central services is recognized
2009/11 • Elaboration & endorsement of an e-learning strategy
• Opening of the E-Learning Center to provide support
• Step by step expansion of support services provided
2012/13 • Systematic quality development being elaboratedf
activities
Slide 4
INTED 2013
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu

5. The challenge of quality development I
 Quality is a context-depending concept – can only be defined in
a complex negotiation process, including all stakeholders
 In education: students are co-producers of quality
 Quality assurance, quality management, quality development ?
 Many quality management systems established, some
transferred to the realm of education ->always need adaptation
and customization
 E-learning support services:
contributes to teaching quality but not teaching!
Slide 5
INTED 2013
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu

6. The challenge of quality development II
Complex social arena an e-learning center operates in:
 Which interests should be given priority?
 How much flexibility should a brick & mortar university offer?
 Which tools should be supported?
 Which services should be provided centrally , which locally?
-> a customized in-house concept, aligned with established quality
models
-> “keep it simple, small and manageable” due to resource
restrictions
Slide 6
INTED 2013
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu

7. Learner-oriented Quality Certification for Further
Education Organizations (LQW)
WHY?
•focus on learner and learning process
(specialized on education)
•Adapted version for „service and counseling“
organizations (KQB)
•Focus on quality development that fosters
organizational learning
Slide 7
INTED 2013 Zech 2007
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu

8. ISO 29990 („Learning Services for non-formal education
and training – basic requirements for service providers“)
WHY?
•focus on service provision
•Business efficiency perspective
•Internationally compatible
Slide 8
INTED 2013
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu

9. Quality Concept for MUAS ELC
•e-learning strategy
•Successful support services
•Indicators for
evaluation •Needs of faculty and students
•Scrutinzed against resources
•Indicators for
documenting
work
•Landscape of key
processes
•Standards for the counseling process &
selection of communication channels
Slide 9
INTED 2013
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu

10. Critical Assessment & Conclusions
 Compact and condensed yet incorporating other organizations’
experiences
 Allows continuous quality improvement!
 CAVEAT: needs one full cycle to gain valid insights
 YET: “Keep it simple, small and manageable” -> lends itself
easily to expansion ->rigorous prioritizing is needed!
 YET: Extra quality area “counseling & communication” as part
of key processes – how helpful is this for the workflow?
 YET: University quality management system not yet
established – modifications needed for alignment?
 PROCESS: different perspectives of steering committee
valuable but also tiresome – YET first step of quality work
done!
Slide 10
INTED 2013
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu

11. Thank you very much…
…..for your attention!
E-Learning Center at MUAS
www.hm.edu/elc
elc@hm.edu
Contact:
Funded by Prof. Dr. Patricia Arnold
Munich University of Applied Sciences
arnold@hm.edu
http://patriciaarnold.wikispaces.com/
Slide 11
INTED 2013
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu