E-learning Benchmarking: Coventry University and the OBHE

1. E-learning Benchmarking:Coventry University and the OBHE David Morris March 2007

2. Scope • Coventry University at an institutional level • Partnership with Warwickshire College via joint partnership document • Emphasis on processes (of course!)

3. Original rationale • an ongoing methodology for benchmarking to help guide our development plans • evidence which can be used to refine our e-learning strategies • a more effective way of prioritizing developments given scarce resources • better data capture from existing (internal) processes to inform development • a better understanding of how learners use the existing provision and what they would like to see • the development of a greater degree of shared aspirations and commitment to e-learning within our institutions and between us

4. Emergent rationale • Shift from “what” questions to “how” questions • Realisation that core of collaboration agenda was student progression • The internal debate itself became the rationale

5. Initial meeting with consultants Prepare IRD Discuss outline methodology Finalise IRD structure The process Review IRDs and prepare digest ? Workshop to swap GP highlights Comparison of self-assessments Self-assessment against GP statements Workshop to develop Good Practice Statements Consultants + group Consultants + institution Consultants Institution

6. David Morris Deans Directors PVCs Frances Deepwell Roundtable group Across the university All levels Not the usual suspects Themed discussions Who was involved?

7. Affordances • a much better understanding of process benchmarking as a developmental tool • an Institutional Review Document (IRD) to guide the implementation of e-learning policy in the future • a perception within the university that we are adopting a thorough and professional approach to developing e-learning • a better understanding of the possibilities of joint developments with Warwickshire College (and, by extension, other partners) in e-learning • a much better understanding of university processes as they apply to e-learning development • a clearer view of practice among our benchmarking partners (principally via the very valuable two day workshop) • a benchmarking methodology which we can use to develop an internal approach to intra-university benchmarking

8. Would we do anything differently? • Allow more time • Develop better data collection tools • Sell the process harder • Write a shorter, tighter Institutional Review Document • Greater stress on outcomes (obviously!)

9. What next? • A digestible guide to the benchmarking exercise, its results and major conclusions for internal dissemination within the university • An internal high level review based on the guide with the IRD and other documents as back-up • A cascade of an internal version of the benchmarking tool to faculties and departments • Developing an action plan for the e-Learning Unit until 2010

10. Lessons • Involvement of external consultants can be very valuable. • Benchmarking is time-consuming and resource-intensive; however what you get out if it will very much depend on how much effort you put in. • Be aware of the dangers of implementing a very centrally-driven benchmarking approach (intra-institution differences can be just as great as between-institution differences) • The two-day workshop was one of the best parts of the exercise and took some of the “pain” away. • Although it is tempting to avoid the debate about definitions of “e-learning” they cannot be avoided when it comes to the practical business of collecting and analyzing data to provide useful information on which to base comparisons and, ultimately, decisions. • The fashionable emphasis on student(s’) experience(s) forgets that tutors matter too.

11. OBHE strengths • A tried and tested methodology • Access to a consultancy team • Very experienced and credible consultancy team • Clear process with deadlines, milestones etc • They have stolen others’ watches to tell you the time

12. In summary, it depends… • …on where you are in the e-learning cycle (works better if you are throwing the balls back in the air) • …on who is doing it in your institution (it is fairly high level stuff and needs high level involvement) • …on what you want out of it (no good if you are looking for detailed implementation plans)