Quality on line: What and how should we be measuring for quality assurance in learning?

1. Quality on line:What and how should we be measuring for quality assurance in learning? Prof. dr. Betty Collis EDEN Research Workshop, 26 October 2006, Castelldefels, Spain Moonen & Collis Learning Technology Consultants bettycollisjefmoonen@gmail.com Emeritus professor, University of Twente Betty.Collis@Utwente.nl

2. Quality? • From whose perspective? • Against what criteria? • What do you do with what you find? • An illustration from practice

3. From whose perspective?

4. Institutional perspective?

5. Institutional perspective Benchmarking: Self-improvement tool for organizations • Compare with others and/or reflect internally • Review comparative strengths & weaknesses • Identify possible routes to improvement • Rather than statistical indicators of results (completion rates, unit costs, etc), focus on processes by which results are achieved • Accreditation reviews • External review body • For licensing • For comparisons among institutions • Implications for funding Items are typically responded to on a scale, with labels corresponding to 0=Not applicable, 1= No information available, 2=Not adequate, 3=Partly adequate, 4=Largely adequate, 5=Fully adequate, 6=Best practices processes

6. http://www.insight.strath.ac.uk/projects/risk/index.htm

7. Is your curriculum development being affected by e-learning? How is the quality of (e)-learning being monitored? What structures are in place to support students? Staff? Should you make, buy, update, or change? How do your students access e-learning technologies and resources? What are the objectives of your investment in e-learning? (ie., widening access?) How might external funding policies affect your e-learning strategy? How are working practices and staff roles being affected? What are students’ expectations?

8. http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/index.shtml How can Institutions help teaching staff to be more successful in their use of technology to support student learning?

9. Source: S. Marchall, (2005). New Zealand E-Learning Capability Determination. Available at http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/Presentations.shtml

10. Learner perspective?

11. Example: Student perceptions (5-pt scale) of: • Flexibility • Responsiveness and support • Learning • Participation/interaction • Usefulness and ease of use of technology • Overall satisfaction McGorry, S. Y. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet & Higher Education, 6, 159-177

12. http://www1.tqi.ac.uk/sites/tqi/home/index.cfm

14. Content perspective? Content, assembly, metadata, standards

15. One set of stakeholders may have one (implicit) view on quality Output oriented Output oriented Infrastructure (to achieve output goal)

16. Another set of stakeholders may have a different view on quality Learning-process oriented

17. And some perspectives may not get represented in these clusters… (Personal) processes? Theory oriented?

18. Or may not be fully taken up in the quality priorities of other clusters Content, assembly, metadata, standards

19. Thus quality reflects the perspective

20. The challenge: Try to combine the perspectives

21. Example of an integrated evaluation approach in a corporate learning context Shell: overall company Shell EP Learning Centre Capture, reuse, from the business and from participant contributions Work-based activities Supervisor engagement Overall company impact & alignment Participant assessment Multinational knowledge sharing Merrill’s Principles of instruction Collaborative learning Competence framework LMS, VLE for strategic/ pedagogic goals Workplace learning, learning- environment design Collis, B., Bianco, M., Margaryan, A., & Waring, B. (2005). Putting blended learning to work: A case study from a multinational oil company. Education, Communication and Information,5(3), 233-250.

22. As part of an integrated approach: Generic principles of learning “Learning is promoted when: • Learners are engaged in solving real-world [i.e., business-relevant] problems. • Existing knowledge [in the learner or in his or her workplace] is activated as a foundation for new knowledge. • New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner [through seeing it in action in the workplace]. • New knowledge is applied by the learner [to his or her current workplace situation]. • New knowledge in integrated into the learner’s world [workplace].” (Merrill, 2002, pp. 44-45, augmented with linkages relating to the corporate context) Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2005). Design criteria for work-based learning: Merrill's First Principles of Instruction expanded. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 725-738. Merrill, D. (2003). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

23. Regardless of the context, an approach for quality should include Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” Merrill’s five first principles of instruction

24. And finally, what to do with the results?

25. Use an action research approach to integrate strategic planning, stimulating, implementing, monitoring and interpreting quality Action research

26. For further ideas: Prof. dr. Betty Collis & Prof. dr. Jef Moonen Moonen & Collis Learning Technology Consultants, BV http://bettycollisjefmoonen.nl

27. Footnote: This talk is not related to the report: “Quality on the Line” which is a benchmarking study Quality On the Line: Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Education By: Ronald Phipps, Jamie Merisotis, 2000; Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington DC http://www.ihep.com/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=104&typeID=906&itemID=9239&templateID=1422