Frydenberg - The Diigo Meta page

• 10 Nov 16
  

  standards RCME desenho_INSTRUÇ

  • Quality Standards in e-Learning: A matrix of analysis
  • are creating or adopting quality statements,
  • The defining feature of most forms distance education is that learners and teachers are not within eyesight of each other
  • In electronic learning, or e-Learning, instructors, at times, may be a machine, as in computer-based training or computer-based tutorials (CBT).
  • They may also be separated in time (asynchronous learning)
  • Web-based learning
  • that institutions of higher education
  • a matrix within which to examine, compare, contrast, and synthesize the standards of e-Learning
  • It remains that the primary influences in tertiary   education in the US are: 1) professional faculty associations; 2) regional accrediting   agencies that have the charge of guiding and evaluating education providers;   and 3) university faculty and administrators. These three groups are the main   players in the arena of presenting and debating standards of quality for electronically   mediated teaching and learning in US higher education.
  • A considerable amount of print-based independent learning still occurs across the US. Although e-Learning may be offered in this non-term, non-cohort fashion, the quality standards considered in this article apply primarily to group-based, time-limited activities
  • In fact, most providers of standards still operate within a paradigm that mimics the “group of learners coming together to study with an expert” tradition. However, other standards of quality will be needed for the emerging e-Learning forms of individual tutoring and non instructor-led, on-demand Web-based learning.
  • capacity to enable sharing of rich media files
  • interactivity of electronic communication in user-friendly modalities
  • the non-linearity of the platform-independent standards of hypertext markup language (HTML) and its successors,
  • The brave new pioneers who choose to experiment in e-Learning are   often those who are challenged by constraints of time and space. In addition,   various authors have drawn conclusions that those who will be most successful   in online learning have certain personality traits or characteristics, such   as independence, assertiveness, persistence, and a reflective attitude
  • However, learners’ criteria for quality in their e-Learning experiences are generally not well understood.
  • There are not yet any Consumer Reports from the learner’s perspective
  • More research remains to be done to fully explore consumer standards for e-Learning and to integrate those standards with traditional academic institutional concerns
  • Standards Domains
  • What, then, constitutes the quality of e-Learning from the viewpoint of the   educator?
  • 1. Institutional Commitment
  • institutional or executive commitment to the education and the provision of learning
  • as financial commitment, the physical plant, articulation and other policies, technical support, legal compliance, etc.
  • emphasizes technological aspects of institutional support in terms of having a technology plan, security, redundancy in the delivery structure, and systems for maintenance of the technological infrastructure
  • faculty and staff development and a commitment to research to their list activities relating to “organizational commitment
  • 2. Technology
  • The technological infrastructure necessary for the delivery of a quality e-Learning program
  • as security and privacy of data and communication as well as the need for interactivity
  • In the type of distance education assumed by the standards documents reviewed in this article, the role of technology in permitting access to materials is to foster interactivity among students and between students and teachers.
  • This interactivity is generally left undefined by the documents, and, in many cases, interaction with a computer in a complex branching program that guides the learner in a “step-and-remediation” process will qualify as interactive.
  • The common underlying assumption of these standards document is that a human guide is available in the form of a faculty member or instructor who leads the student group toward a learning goal
  • the standards under the heading “technology” have yet to identify criteria related to the functions of material access and interactivity, as well as to deeper technical issues such as system maintenance, up-time, redundancy, network access, and so on.
  • 3. Student Services
  • centered on student services
  • services needed before students’ entrance to a virtual classroom, support during the learning experience, and the continued connection between learners and the institution after the particular course or program has been completed.
  • the decision to create an e-Learning program must be based, in part, on an assessment of a learning need in an identifiable and reachable group of potential learners.
  • 4. Instructional Design and Course Development
  • e-Learning is heavily front-loaded
  • However the hybrid model of combining licensed learning objects with university-developed specialty content has promise. This is so, because it enables the university to focus on its primary strength, innovative thought, while licensing or buying the more mundane necessary objects that lead a learner onward, such as self-tests, “bridge” units that connect one topic with the preceding topics, and standard graphs, charts, and diagrams. Many textbook publishers are looking at such a model with interest and are at work disaggregating their traditional bound textbooks into defined, tagged, retrievable, and sharable learning objects.
  • Technological Infrastructure
  • The central issue in courseware development at the moment is the potential for developing reusable learning objects, tagging them in a systematic way, storing them in well-designed databases, and retrieving and recombining them with other objects to create customized learning experiences for specific needs.
  • What are the most effective ways of advising students who never set foot on campus? How do we build a virtual community that they can feel a part of?
  • Instructional design for the World Wide Web is based on the temporal, chronological models of speech, where one has to speak one word at a time.
  • How do we design non-sequential instruction?
  • Rather than sequentially developing courses, we need to outsource components and develop them simultaneously
  • Secondly, the skills of the new breed of educational manager deserve elucidation as the creation of educational opportunities at a distance increasingly involves multi-disciplinary teams rather than traditional individual faculty members.
  • What is the optimum level of control and for whom?
  • How we can specify what quality online instruction is beyond what we already know as quality instruction in a face-to-face mode?
  • Program delivery is a process of making the complexity transparent to the learners.
  • copyright and intellectual property law means we must be more vigilant than ever.
  • As pedagogy and learning needs drive educational design, every possible mutation of physical and virtual meetings of minds will be created and be grounded in pedagogical purpose

  49 more annotations...

• 09 Sep 14
  

  john bennett

  " e-Learning; online learning; Web-based learning; quality standards; development delivery and support of online learning"

  NTOEC elearning

  • Distance education in the US comes out of the tradition of “independent learning,” in which learners who did not have ready geographical access to a physical campus, studied on their own using materials (e.g., texts, assignments, exams) mailed to them by universities.
  • most providers of standards still operate within a paradigm that mimics the “group of learners coming together to study with an expert” tradition
  • emerging e-Learning forms of individual tutoring and non instructor-led, on-demand Web-based learning.
  • rich media files (pictures, complex diagrams, video, audio);
  • “There must be technological opportunity for synchronous interaction between learners and teachers,
  • None of the reports and position papers this author has reviewed, indicate availability of materials (text, video, audio) as essential as a highly rated component of a quality education program.
  • he role of technology in permitting access to materials is to foster interactivity among students and between students and teachers. This interactivity is generally left undefined by the documents, and, in many cases, interaction with a computer in a complex branching program that guides the learner in a “step-and-remediation” process will qualify as interactive.
  • Good practice encourages contacts between students and faculty”
  • Student interaction with faculty and other students is an essential characteristic and is facilitated through a variety of technologies including voice mail and / or email” (IHE, 2000).
  • we have not yet in the US, begun to grapple with quality standards in non instructor-led education.
  • technology” have yet to identify criteria related to the functions of material access and interactivity, as well as to deeper technical issues such as system maintenance, up-time, redundancy, network access, and so on
  • student services
  • he services needed before students’ entrance to a virtual classroom, support during the learning experience, and the continued connection between learners and the institution after the particular course or program has been completed.
  • assessment of a learning need in an identifiable and reachable group of potential learners.
  • course requirements, equipment, and techniques for succeeding in a distance learning environment..
  • including admission, tuition and fees, books and supplies, and student support services” (IHE, 2000).
  • practical and academic counseling
  • toll-free phone numbers
  • database-driven student management software
  • chat-rooms
  • pre-program “how to use our virtual facilities” processes,
  • time-to-completion, student evaluation, financial aid, stop-out policies, etc., are often cited as examples of quality student services.
  • supplementary video and audio recordings under the rubric of supporting materials.
  • encouragement of students to become active participants in out-of-class student activities for such potentially self-serving reasons as enhancing degree completion rates, and because researchers (Astin, 1993) report that acculturation into the larger entity of the learning and research body of practice, adds value to the kind and level of learning students’ are able to attain.
  • forge virtual student-government organizations, student health services available online, career services, and even “virtual football.” As a learner progresses from novice to certificate or degree recipient, virtual alumni associations are also beginning to be mentioned.
  • interactions
  • earning goals and content presentation
  • nstructional media and tools
  • assessment and measurement
  • learner   services and support
  • The same faculty member also provides lectures, seminars, and discussions that form the link between the content, its scope, selection, and sequencing, and students’ learning outcomes. However, in e-Learning it is crucial to separate the two roles since it is not given that the person who develops materials for a course will be the one, or the only one, to teach from these.
  • Unlike traditional education, however, e-Learning is heavily front-loaded. Electronic course design takes considerable time, effort, and money, and the results of instructional design decisions are not easily changed. Benchmarks of quality for instructional design as divorced from the process of utilizing that design to facilitate learning (commonly known as “teaching”) tend to state that the design must flow from the objectives – a lofty goal – and that it must enable interactivity.
  • The design imperative of enabling interactivity is based on the assumption that learning occurs through discourse, or at least that the kind of learning opportunities that educational institutions offer occurs through such activity.
  • nterestingly, the development of instructorless CBT does not make this assumption, nor do software-based tutorial programs. However, these tend to have objectives at the Bloom’s taxonomy levels of knowledge, comprehension, and application, rather than the university levels of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Can instructorless courses (Schank, 2002) be designed that demonstrably develop learners’ creativity, innovativeness, and abstract thinking? From such studies we will be better able to assess the quality of instructional design separately from instruction.
  • quality instruction in a face-to-face setting (such as depth of knowledge of the instructor, presentation and organizational skills, encouraging attitudes toward student dialog, feedback and guidance, etc.), one issue crops up in most of the standards documents: that the distance learner is mostly solitary.
  • Good practice encourages contacts between students and faculty” (AAHE, 2000).
  • unless the instructional design of the electronically mediated course overtly emphasizes the students as a group of learners, individual students are most likely to perceive themselves as interacting within a mutually exclusive student / tutorial relationship with the instructor.
  • employs tutors supporting small groups of learners
  • Prior to teaching, an instructor must feel comfortable utilizing the media of the course and hence may need training and guidance.
  • During an e-Learning class, personnel must be available at the institution to assist instructors to resolve issues of a technological nature or to mediate difficulties in student
  • ust as with on-ground instruction, the faculty member must have access to post-course assistance related to evaluation
  • monitoring students to ensure academic honesty,   content revision and oversight, technical requirements for acceptable access,
  • Good program delivery depends on two aspects: 1) defined policies, procedures,   responsibilities; and 2) communication, and fair and impartial management. In   the best of all possible worlds, program delivery and program administration   should be transparent to learners, just as the existence of the power plant   on campus generally is.
  • Universities, which have undertaken the production of full in-house programs from scratch, have often discovered to their dismay that expenditures per course are not inversely proportional to volume of courses to be produced.
  • Instead of a factory model of production, many institutions treat online course development as a cottage industry where each new course is handcrafted.
  • most faculty would balk at the idea of using another professor’s lecture notes, yet we have no trouble using someone else’s textbook
  • hybrid model of combining licensed learning objects with university-developed specialty content has promise. This is so, because it enables the university to focus on its primary strength, innovative thought, while licensing or buying the more mundane necessary objects that lead a learner onward, such as self-tests, “bridge” units that connect one topic with the preceding topics, and standard graphs, charts, and diagrams.

  • 1. “The program’s educational effectiveness and teaching   / learning process is assessed through an evaluation process that uses several   methods and applies specific standards.
     

     

    2. Data on enrollment, costs, and successful / innovative uses of   technology are used to evaluate program effectiveness.
     

     

    3. Intended learning outcomes are reviewed regularly to ensure clarity, utility, and appropriateness.” (IHE, 2000)

  • 1. The extent to which student learning matches intended outcomes,   including for degree programs both the goals of general education and the objectives   of the major.
     

     

    2. The extent to which student intent is met.
     

     

    3. Student retention rates, including variations over time.
     

     

    4. Student satisfaction, as measured by regular surveys.
     

     

    5. Faculty satisfaction, as measured by regular surveys and by formal   and informal peer review processes.
     

     

    6. The extent to which access is provided to students not previously   served.
     

     

    7. Measures of the extent to which library and learning resources   are used appropriately by the program’s students.
     

     

    8. Measures of student competence in fundamental skills such as communication,   comprehension, and analysis.
     

     

    9. Cost effectiveness of the program to its students, as compared to campus-based alternatives.”

  • 1. Executive commitment

     

    2. Technological infrastructure

     

    3. Student services

     

    4. Design and development

     

    5. Instruction and instructor services

     

    6. Program delivery

     

    7. Financial health

     

    8. Legal and regulatory requirements

     

    9. Program evaluation
  • developing reusable learning objects, tagging them in a systematic way, storing them in well-designed databases, and retrieving and recombining them with other objects to create customized learning experiences for specific needs.
  • technical solutions are required to track student-learning performance.
  • we are looking for more user-friendly tools to enable them to create excellent learning materials and intellectual meeting spaces easily and quickly.
  • we need all these technical innovations to interface seamlessly with all legacy systems. All of these issues point to interdisciplinary studies that merge pedagogy with technical tools.
  • How do we design non-sequential instruction?
  • we need faster “time to market.”
  • 1. Distance students should be given advance information about course   requirements, equipment, and techniques for succeeding in a distance learning   environment, as well as technical training and support throughout the course.
  • 2. Close person interaction should be maintained in distance education   courses among students and between students and teachers.
  • 3. Equivalent library materials and research opportunities should   be made available to distance education students.
  • 4. Assessment of student knowledge, skills, and knowledge should be   as rigorous as assessments in classroom-based courses.
  • 5. Academic counseling and advising should be available to distance   learning students at the same level it is for students in more traditional campus   environments.
  • 6. Academic faculty should shape, approve, and evaluate distance education   courses.
  • 7. Full undergraduate degree programs should include classroom-based coursework, with exceptions for students truly unable to participate in classroom education.
  • meta-study approach

  62 more annotations...

• 17 Nov 12
  

  Stella Porto

  quality distance education models standards analysis

• 03 Oct 12
  

  Arlynne Awayan
• 29 Apr 11
  

  julie feeney

  elearning

  • This article summarizes current published quality standards in the US, and  analyzes and organizes them into a nine-cell matrix

  • 1. Institutional Commitment

  • 2. Technology

  • 3. Student Services
  • Instructional Design and Course Development
  • Unlike traditional education, however, e-Learning is heavily front-loaded.  Electronic course design takes considerable time, effort, and money, and the  results of instructional design decisions are not easily changed.
  • Instruction and Instructors
  • Many also had delusions that the cost of one instructor at regular salary levels  could be spread over hundreds of full tuition students and enable a rapid  economy of scale. Neither of these assumptions has proven true
  • As with all educational programs, there are fixed and variable costs of  e-Learning.
  • many institutions treat online course development as a cottage industry where  each new course is handcrafted
  • . Evaluation
  • Intended learning outcomes are reviewed regularly to ensure clarity, utility,  and appropriateness.” (IHE, 2000)
  • Program evaluation includes the assessment that students make of their learning  experience

  11 more annotations...

• 17 Mar 11
  

  Jil Wright

  elearning standards learning quality e-learning design effective

• 29 Aug 10
  

  Carole Calenso-Fair

  e-Learning; online learning; Web-based quality standards; development delivery and support of learning

• 10 Nov 07
  

  Mario A Núñez

  calidad_ed

• 24 May 06
  

  randym Meredith

  Elements of quality in DE

  best_practices distance_education

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.