5. Driving forces for quality
Branding /instant reputation
Digitalization
Technical innovations
Inernatíonalisation
Collaborate to compete
Social innovations
Strategical partnerships
“Learn on the go”
Ossiannilsson 2013
6. What´s in it for me?
Quality is in the eye of the beloved
7. Retrospective or
prospektive?
• From control to
enhancement
• Self-evaluation
• Peer review
• Benchmarking
• Certification
• Accreditation
• Quality assurance
CC BY-NC Some rights reserved by Shira Golding
8. Quality culture – dialectic approach
Communication
Trust
Co-operatiop
Inclusivness
Innovation/Creativity
Quality control
Processmodels
Guidelines
Rules
Standards
Competeces
Attitudes
Values
Self -evaluation
CC BY Some rights reserved by SeattleClouds.com
9. Benchmarking
“The locus of benchmarking lies
between the current and
desirable states of affairs and
contributes to the
transformation process that
realizes these improvements.” (2009)
Moriarty & Smallman
En route to a theory on
benchmarking
10. Benchmarking
Benchmarking is an internal organisational
process that aims to improve the
organisation´s performance by learning
about possible improvements of its primary
and/or support processes by looking at
these processes in other, better-performing
organisations (van Vught et al. 2008a: 16).
The concept was first used by Camp at
10
Xerox (1989 1993).
11.
12. E-learning
Epprobate is: “teaching and learning- which may
represent a part or the whole of the education model in
which it is used – that makes use of electronic media and
devices to facilitate access, promote evolution and
improve the quality of education and training.”
12
13. The Internet and the Web
Learning objects
Learning Management Systems
Mobile devices
Learning Design
Gaming technologies
Open Educational Resources
80s
93
94
95
98
99
00
01
04
Massive Open Online Courses
05
E-books and smart devices
Virtual worlds
Social and participatory media
Multimedia resources
E-Learning timeline
07
08
http://scienceoftheinvisible.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/a-ramble-through-history-of-on
http://halfanhour.blogspot.be/2012/02/e-learning-generations.html
14. Background
• The Swedish National Agency of
Higher Education, ELQ
• EADTU, E-xcellence+
• ESMU, Benchmarking eLearning
exercise 2009
14
• The First dual-mode distance
15. Positioning the dissertation to its
frame of reference
Quality
assurance
Changing
cultures
E-learning
Rhizome
Bechmarking
Benchmarking
e-learning
OER/web2.0
Connectivism
Quality
enhancement
Knowledge
Management
15
16. Research questions
RQ 1 How to conduct benchmarking for elearning?
RQ 2 What are the benefits of
benchmarking e-learning?
RQ 3 What challenges are encountered
when attempting to integrate
benchmarking e-learning to general
16 quality assurance systems?
18. Ossiannilsson E & Landgren L (2011). Essential areas that benchmarking e-learning ought to
cover. Reprinted with permission from Wiley-Blackwell.
18
21. Shelton (2011)
Institutional commitment, support and leadership
Teaching and learning
Faculty support, student support; course development
Technology; evaluation and assessment
Cost effectiveness; management and planning
Student and faculty satisfaction
Other
….require strong and on-going support, training, motivation,
compensation, and overall policies.
23. Benchmarking benefits and
values
• Self assess institutions
• Better understand the
process
• Measure and compare
• Discover new ideas
• Obtain data to support
decision making
• Targets for
improvements
• Strengthen identity,
strategy,
implementation
• Enhance reputation
• Respond to national
indicators
• New standard for the
sector
Van Vught, F. (2008)
A practical guide. Benchmarking in European Higher Education
25. On changing quality
perspectives
Networking
Sustainability
Boundless education
Lifelong learning
Holistic and conceptual
approach and embedded
and beyond
A move from my students,
my course, my resorurse…
towards our´s…
Globalisation
Demography
Technical and digital
development
Student involvement and
student completion
Quality
Frame of references
(Ossiannilsson 2012)
26. European Association of
Distance Teaching Universities
E-XCELLENCE
QA in e-learning; a cooperation model
between universities and QA-agencies
SEQUENT
23 November 2013, Vilnius, LT
From Paris conf EADTU 25th Oct 203
George Ubachs (EADTU)
Ebba Ossiannilsson (EADTU, Lund University)
27. General objective
Creating a QA in e-learning system, because:
• The use of e-learning increases
• E-learning is an essential element for Lifelong learning
• Internationalisation of education is supported by e-learning
• E-learning has become mainstream provision
Integral part of education – Integral part of QA
E-xcellence instrument launched in 2007:
Complementary to the existing internal and external national
quality assurance systems.
28. E-xcellence: QA in e-learning instrument
• Curriculum design, Course design, Course
delivery, Services (student and staff support),
Management (institutional strategies)
• E-xcellence focuses on elements in course
provision that contribute to Lifelong Learning
schemes, like:
ease of access to courses and services
new forms of interaction (students and staff)
flexibility and personalisation
• E-xcellence is a benchmarking instrument.
29. Why benchmarking?
The system of benchmarking includes:
• The institution taking the responsibility for QA
• Self-evaluation as a bases for self-improvement
• Using peer reviewers as reference and input for
improvement
*In a collaborative process of dialogue we create an
environment of learning from each other
*In a process of comparing the university’s’
performance with best practices in the field of elearning we identify weaknesses and strengths
• Setting a roadmap for improvement
30.
31.
32. The basic tool is the quick scan, which can be applied in three ways:
The quick scan as a quick orientation (basic option)
The quick scan with a review at a distance (extended option)
The quick scan with an on-site assessment (most comprehensive option)
33. E-xcellence Associates Label
Not a label of proven excellence,
but a label to reward continuous
educational improvement.
Self-assessment
Roadmap of improvement
Review
Essential is integration
of benchmarks
The label is provided based on an
external review at a distance
Label
or on-site.
Virtual Benchmarking
Community
34.
35. E-xcellence Roadmap
2005
2006
E-xcellence
Project
2007
2008
2009 -> 2011 2012
Excellence
instrument
E-xcellence +
Project
TF Quality
Assurance
label
E-xcellence
E-xcellence
NEXT
NEXT
E-xcellence
Associates label
Goal: From project to mainstream implementation of the
E-xcellence instrument European wide at the local level.
36. Institutions involved
Core Partners (2005-2012)
1
EADTU (The Netherlands)
2
Open Universiteit Nederland (The Netherlands)
3
Open University (United Kingdom)
4
OULU-University (Finland)
5
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) (Spain)
6
PROSE (Belgium)
Universities that used E-xcellence
7
Centre National d'Enseignement à Distance (CNED)
8
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC)
9
Estonian Information Technology Foundation (EITSA)
10
National Council for Distance Education (APERTUS)
11
Network per l'Universita Ovunque (NETTUNO)
12
European University Association (EUA)
13
Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatie Organisatie (NVAO)
37. Universities that used E-xcellence
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
•
•
32
International Telematic University UNINETTUNO (Italy)
Tallinn University (Estonia)
Högskoleverket / NSHU (Sweden)
KU Leuven (Belgium)
The Czech Association of Distance Learning University (CADUV)
University of Hradec Králové (Czech Republic)
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava (Slovakia)
Universitäre Fernstudien Schweiz (Switzerland)
Hungarian e-University Network (Hungary)
University of Southern Denmark
University of Copenhagen
Aarhus University
University of Latvia
Lund University
University of Kuopio
University of Porto
University of Bologna
Universidade Aberta (UAb), Portugal
Open University of Cyprus (OUC), Cyprus
38. Universities that used E-xcellence
33
34
35
36
37
Riga Technical University (RTU), Latvia
Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza (AGH), Poland
Hellenic Open University (HOU), Greece
Kaunas University of Technology (KTU), Lithuania
MESI (RU)
European and Global stakeholders
•
•
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
36
37
European Centre for Strategic Management of Universities (ESMU),
Belgium
European University Association
African Council for Distance Learning (ACDE), Kenya
CommonWealth of Learning (COL), Canada
Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Quality in Distance Higher
Education(CALED), Ecuador
Association for Asian Open Universities (AAOU)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), France
International Council for Distance Education (ICDE)
EADTU Student Council, The Netherlands
EURASHE
The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher
39. QA-agencies reached
with E-xcellence
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENQA as Associate partner in the project NEXT
Portuguese Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher
Education – (A3ES),
La Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación
(ANECA, Spain),
Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad (VLIR),
Vlaamse Hogescholenraad (VLOHRA),
Dutch-Flemish accreditation body (NVAO),
Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education,
Higher Education Quality Evaluation Centre (HEQEC – AIKNC),
Polish Quality Assurance Agency for Technical Universities (KAUT),
Higher Education Planning, Evaluation, Accreditation and
Coordination Council (YÖDAK, TR)
Hellenic Quality Assurance Agency (HQAA).
40. QA-agencies and e-learning
From the ENQA Sigtuna Seminar on QA in e-learning (Oct. 2009)
•establish a solid quality assurance system in Europe
•eLearning should not be evaluated separately,
•There is a need for a common definition and understanding on all
aspects of eLearning.
•There is a need for a “common language” that would help higher
education institutions and quality assurance agencies strive for the
same goal.
•It is important to meet and discuss quality assurance at the European
level and between different stakeholders in the educational sector
•to provide adequate training for academic professionals, higher
education providers and quality evaluation experts.
41. NEXT STEP: SEQUENT
• The “SEQUENT” project aims to promote
excellence in the use of ICT in higher
education, with a clear goal to prepare
European Universities in line with the
European Modernization Agenda and to
make higher education in Europe fit better
to cross-border collaboration initiatives in
the implementation of innovative and ICT
enhanced partnerships.
42. OBJECTIVES
• Convince governments, universities and QA agencies of the
necessity to have a QA approach for e-Learning provision
• To raise awareness on Open and flexible learning among
higher education institutions and networks throughout the
mainstream education channels.
• Further disseminate instruments for different applications of
QA and a clear summary of the available method and to
promote UNIQUe and E-xcellence as examples.
• To support universities in the adoption of a QA and eLearning strategy, through dissemination and training
activities.
I am Ebba Ossiannilsson, Lund University, Sweden
I recently, dec 2012 earned my PhD from Oulu University in Finland and I did it through distance
I work for several international and national organisations on open learning and quality and some of them are represented here by their logos
I will here especially emphazise the work on the Paris declaration by UNESCO, the work with OER Service and the MOOC quality project. I also use to serve as a reviewer for several organisations, such as EFQUEL and Epprobate.
I have been asked to talk about the topic I am happy to share this with you today
Ossiannilsson (2012) Benchmarking (e)-learning in higher education, Doctoral dissertation, Oulu University, Finland
RQ1 How to conduct benchmarking for (e)-learning?
RQ 2 What are the benefits of benchmarking (e)-learning?
RQ 3 What challenges are encountered when attempting to integrate benchmarking (e)-learning to general quality assurance systems?
The most important in my dissertation at research is on the themes I present here today and that we need to stress taht we dont jsut haveto rethink edcaation and learning, but also quality and how we measure and looka t that
QA, QE, QI
Some ne indicators or way of looking at quality have been explicit
Next slide…
There are many words for this concept, e.g., (in alphabetic order) blended learning, digital learning, distance learning, e-learning2.0,
enhanced learning, mobile learning, net-based learning, online learning, open learning, ubiquitous learning, web-based learning.
Often the concepts are seen as synonymous. On the enhanced learning aspect – the term TEL for Technology Enhanced Learning
is often commonly used instead of e-learning in the UK. Open University of Catalonias definition through the e-learning
conceptual framework project, adopted by Epprobate is: “teaching and learning- which may represent a part or the whole of the
education model in which it is used – that makes use of electronic media and devices to facilitate access, promote evolution and
improve the quality of education and training.”
The use of OER and UGC are also more and more integrated and included in the concept (Conole 2012, ICDE 2011, Plotkin 2010).
§
E-learning:
teaching and learning-which may represent a part or the whole of the education model in which it is used- that makes use of electronic media and devices to facilitate acces, promote evolution and improve the quality of educational education and training (Open U Catalonia)
Anderson and Elloumi (2011)
P 81 in my dissertation
Cover institutional, pedagogical, technical, ethical and manageriel aspects and include three main categories, including six areas
The work by Deleuze and Guattari (1987) was found to give new understanding of the phenomenon of benchmarking e-learning. The theory is
close to the understanding and meaning of connectivity and cultivating cultures. The theory has come to represent a departure point for contemporary
understanding of digital identity, one that resonates with cartographic or map-like metaphors (Giger 2010, Warburton 2010). The terms rhizome and rhizomatic describe theory and research that allow for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. Deleuze and Guattari (1987) oppose it to an arborescent conception of knowledge, which works with dualistcategories and binary choices. A rhizome works with horisontal and trans-species connections, while an arborescent model works with vertical and linear connections. As a model for culture development, the rhizome resists the organisational structure of the root-tree system, which charts causality along chronological lines and looks for the original source of things and looks towards the pinnacle or conclusion of those things. A rhizome, in contrast, ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic chains, organisations of power and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences and social struggles. A rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things, inter-being. In this model, culture spreads like the surface of a body of water, spreading towards
available spaces or trickling downwards towards new spaces through fissures and gaps, eroding what is in its way. The authors outline the concept as principles of connection and heterogeneity; i.e., any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other. The metaphor shows how connections seek their own lines, with points of departure in the middle seeking out the periphery, similarly described in the theories of connectivism and collaboration, and the concept of serendipity. There is no single true view; there are only ever-partial perspectives and
multiplicities of dimension. There is no privileged entry point, and it is always open to change. The rhizome theory is a useful framework for understanding selfdetermined learning. The self-determined pathway to learning is fast becoming familiar to learners in the digital age, and it is also the antithesis of the formal, structured learning found in traditional education (cited in Giger 2010). The concept is therefore true for e-learning, as openness in learning, stretched learning environments and extended learning spaces are unpredictable. The desire for exploring and curiosity and to make connections in digital
networks leads to the epistemology based on a process called serendipity (cited in Giger 2010), which means to find something that was not expected that leads to new connections and new insights, often never ending. However, the concept has nothing to do with chance or randomness. Serendipity has to do with attention and is about holism rather than reductionism. Serendipity helps to make sense and is a
general process.
E-learning is becoming increasingly important
in both mainstream and continuing HE.
Improving e-learning will ultimately support the Bologna objectives and EADTU’s “e-Bologna” by:
creating a European Area of Higher Education
ensuring co-operation between universities and raise competitiveness of European universities.
For example:
criteria based on ease of access
new forms of interaction between staff and students and students between them
flexibility, personalisation
and other pedagogical aspects that are more relevant to
e-learning than criteria that are traditionally used for quality
assurance and accreditation.
These express the added value e-learning brings
into higher education
100- page document. Coverage of the manual is reasonably comprehensive from strategic planning for e-learning developments at institutional level through the design of e-learning curricula and course elements to the support for students and teachers in e-learning situations.
We’ve included a glossary of the more specialised terms used following feedback from the pilots that there was scope for mis-interpretation without it.
Each section has a set of benchmarks (33 in total across all six sections), critical factors and assessors notes.
The benchmarks comprise a set of general quality statements designed to cover a wide range of contexts in which programme designers and others work. It is intended that the benchmarks will be relevant to virtually all e-learning situations at HE level. The benchmarks themselves might usefully form the basis for institutions’ quality self-assessment where the full range of criteria and performance indicators are not judged to be relevant to the context (eg in situations where e-learning developments are confined to a minority of courses or to specialist areas of the institution’s work.)
The critical factors and performance indicators which follow then focus on particular topics relevant to the benchmark statements and develop the parameters of quality in respect of each. Not all the critical factors will be relevant in all situations, and several will be seen to cut across more than one benchmark statement (and vice versa). Thus there is no one-to-one relationship between the benchmarks and the critical factors because they are pitched at different levels of analysis. Performance indicators tied to the critical factors are then offered at both general and excellence levels.
The Assessors notes then provide a more detailed and discursive account of the issues surrounding each critical factor and the various approaches which might be taken to meet quality requirements in each situation.
The intention is therefore that the manual can be used at several different levels ranging from a general and quick assessment tool based on compliance with the benchmark statements through to an in-depth analysis taking into account relevant critical factors and performance indicators and using the assessors’ notes as a good-practice guide.
The Manual is NOT about re-inventing the frameworks for QA to fit e-learning. We pondered over whether to include a separate (seventh) section covering monitoring and evaluation in an e-learning context. We decided against such an approach because it would be a repetition of much standard QA protocol with which we are all familiar through institutional practice, national QA bodies etc. There is also the danger that a QA section would be seen as sufficient in itself for assessing quality in an e-learning context when the real trick is to ensure that e-learning developments are integrated into existing systems for audit and assessment, not seen as something separate.
One of the characteristics of an e-learning environment is the sheer amount of monitoring information which may be made available relative to more traditional methods of learning. Most e-learning platforms provide for an extensive level of monitoring and feedback, and student learning behaviour is usually more easily tracked and recorded in an e-learning context than in a traditional classroom. Also, external reviewers are able to gain access to the full range of course materials and to sample the delivery of the programme directly. This has obvious advantages for evaluation but also certain potential disadvantages associated with the sheer volume of data and opinion available. It is hoped that by focussing on specific benchmarks and criteria, institutions will be able to develop performance indicators which are fit for purpose in their own context.
As my strong believe caring is sharing
So my footprints and contact details
My slides are available at slidshare where you can find my other presentations as well
