1 / 14

Anglia Ruskin Case Study for QA-QE e-Learning Toolkit

Anglia Ruskin Case Study for QA-QE e-Learning Toolkit. Uwe Matthias Richter Dr Berenice Rivera-Macias George Evangelinos Dr Julian Priddle 14 th of June 2011. Overview. Introduction Research Approach Research Findings The Distance Learning Lifecycle (Stage 1) Questions. Introduction.

ohio
Download Presentation

Anglia Ruskin Case Study for QA-QE e-Learning Toolkit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Anglia Ruskin Case Study for QA-QE e-Learning Toolkit Uwe Matthias Richter Dr Berenice Rivera-Macias George Evangelinos Dr Julian Priddle 14th of June 2011

  2. Overview • Introduction • Research Approach • Research Findings • The Distance Learning Lifecycle (Stage 1) • Questions

  3. Introduction • Comparative study of the development of two online distance learning (ODL) pathways up to validation • Pathway A: in-house development • Pathway B: distributed and partially outsourced development • Aims • To review existing processes • To identify gaps • To streamline process(es) informed by the QA-QE e-Learning Toolkit as part of a distance learning lifecycle

  4. Research Approach • Survey (guided by QA-QE e-Learning Toolkit) followed by • Focus groups / Interviews with pathway academic and support development teams • Review of validation documentation

  5. Driven by Internal Change Driven by Market Demand Pathway A Pathway B Fully in-house Development Combined Outsourced & in-house Findings: The Case Studies

  6. Similarities: Processes • Institutional ODL development and validation processes: • Structured development processes were not in place • Communication channels between and within the team(s) had to be developed • Validation process lacked transparency regarding requirements / checklist • Disparity between face-to-face and ODL modules in validation requirements

  7. Similarities: Design • The design process and expertise: • The approach to using the VLE was more conservative than innovative • The academic development teams depended on the technology expertise of one learning technologist in each faculty

  8. Similarities: Support • Local and central support of ODL development teams: • Insufficient acknowledgement of time for the development of ODL pathways • Workload relating to development process poorly quantified • Insufficient readiness of academic development teams due to lack of e-learning training and experience • Insufficient central provision of materials and resources for student induction and support

  9. Differences: Drivers / Organisation Drivers: • Pathway A driven by internal change of provision • Pathway B driven by market demand Teams and Roles: • Pathway A was managed by an internal Academic Development Team supported by the Faculty learning technologist (technically) and the Head of Department (strategically) • The development of Pathway B was based on a distributed team of external content developers, the academic development team and Faculty learning technologist, and a central ODL support team. The Team was lead by a dedicated project manager and strategically by the Faculty and support service senior management

  10. The Relations for Pathway A Faculty / Department Management Clear initial Processes & Support Module Leaders: Development Team (Faculty) Pathway Leader (Faculty) Technical & DL support Learning Technologist (Faculty) Central ODL Support Unit (LDS)

  11. The Relations for Pathway B Learning Development Services (LDS) Management Faculty / Department Management Unclear initial stages & processes Distance Learning Project Manager (LDS) External Body (Outsourced Content Production) Academic Development Team (Faculty) Did not produce ODL materials Lack of engagement of module leader Adaptation of ODL material Central ODL Support Unit (LDS) Learning Technologist (Faculty) Came in much later

  12. Advantages & Risks of a Distributed Process • The main advantage is that a distributed process with outsourced elements allows a more agile course of action with “capacity on demand” • The main risks are associated with: • the complexity of the processes • the complexity of communication • the lack of expertise in ODL by some contributors • the unclear ownership of the “product”

  13. Suggestions for the validation process:QA-QE e-Learning Toolkit • To include an initial analysis stage with: • market research in order to understand the potential students, and • a scoping exercise to identify resources and cost benefit • To promote a project management approach to ODL development involving: • defined project management and responsibilities / accountabilities, • clear timelines, milestones and sign-off points, • resource requirements, and • a risk analysis • To identify which parts of the process are supported locally, centrally and externally

  14. Plenary Questions Our illustration of the distance learning lifecycle includes many existing elements but is still like a large jigsaw puzzle. Questions Do you have a lifecycle approach? If so, how does it look? Have you completed the puzzle and, if yes, how?

More Related