Ehlers / Pawlowski Handbook on Quality and Standardisation in E-Learning

1. Auflage 2006
ISBN: 978-3-540-32788-2
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 574 Seiten

For building a knowledge society, it is critically important to thoroughly understand quality and standards in e-learning. The handbook provides a cross-national perspective on these issues and draws a clear picture of the situation in quality development and standardization. It gives a concise overview on the field of quality research which can be used for teaching purposes and contains examples of quality and standards and practice.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Ehlers, Ulf-Daniel

Pawlowski, Jan Martin

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Note from editors;5
2;What can you expect?;7
2.1;Part A: Quality development: Methods and approaches;7
2.2;Part B: E-learning standards;7
2.3;Part C: Fields of practice and case studies;8
3;Contents;9
4;1 Quality in European e-learning: An introduction;21
4.1;1.1 Introduction: Quality in e-learning as emerging leitmotif;21
4.2;1.2 E-learning quality: A field of great diversity;22
4.3;1.3 Quality & standards for e-learning;24
4.4;1.4 Preview on the book chapters;28
5;2 Quality in a Europe of diverse systems and shared goals;34
5.1;2.1 Europe: A worldwide quality reference;34
5.2;2.2 Diverse systems, shared goals;35
5.3;2.3 Quality and the impact of ICT;40
5.4;2.4 Conclusion;47
6;Part A: European quality development: Methods and approaches;48
6.1;3 Quality of e-learning: Negotiating a strategy, implementing a policy;49
6.1.1;3.1 Is quality in e-learning a “clear” concept?;49
6.1.2;3.2 Why quality in e-learning is not a unified concept?;51
6.1.3;3.3 The components of the learning experience and related quality criteria;56
6.1.4;3.4 Quality policy implementation steps;64
6.1.5;3.5 Conclusions;67
6.2;4 The maze of accreditation in European higher education;69
6.2.1;4.1 Introduction;70
6.2.2;4.2 Accreditation bodies;71
6.2.3;4.3 Accreditation processes and evaluation methods;72
6.2.4;4.4 Preparation phase;73
6.2.5;4.5 Application phase;74
6.2.6;4.6 Evaluation phase;74
6.2.7;4.7 Decision phase;76
6.2.8;4.8 Accreditation standards and criteria in the field of education and training;76
6.2.9;4.9 Sketch for the future;80
6.2.10;4.10 How to find a suitable accreditation body, process and criteria?;81
6.3;5 Adopting quality standards for education and e-learning;83
6.3.1;5.1 Introduction;83
6.3.2;5.2 Quality standards;84
6.3.3;5.3 The quality standard for learning, education, and training: ISO/ IEC 19796- 1;86
6.3.4;5.4 Summary;95
6.4;6 Process-oriented quality management;96
6.4.1;6.1 Introduction;96
6.4.2;6.2 Quality management and quality development;97
6.4.3;6.3 Influential quality management approaches;101
6.4.4;6.4 Quality standards and reference models;105
6.4.5;6.5 Summary;113
6.5;7 An analysis of international quality management approaches in e- learning: Different paths, similar pursuits;114
6.5.1;7.1 Introduction: How to differentiate quality management approaches?;114
6.5.2;7.2 Use of quality management approaches in the academic and the corporate sectors;117
6.5.3;7.3 Selection of a representative set of quality management approaches;119
6.5.4;7.4 Breaking down complexity: From niche-qualities to generally agreed on concepts;121
6.5.5;7.5 Conclusion;124
6.6;8 The quality mark e-learning: Developing process- and product-oriented quality;126
6.6.1;8.1 Introduction;126
6.6.2;8.2 Quality marks for e-learning;127
6.6.3;8.3 Requirements for a quality mark;127
6.6.4;8.4 Quality mark e-learning;130
6.6.5;8.5 First experiences;140
6.6.6;8.6 Summary and future developments;141
6.7;9 Competency-based quality securing of e-learning ( CQ- E);142
6.7.1;9.1 Introduction;142
6.7.2;9.2 E-learning and the consignment of know-how, abilities, qualifications and competencies;143
6.7.3;9.3 E-learning within the context of job-related operational learning forms;147
6.7.4;9.4 E-learning, competency measurement and competency training;152
6.7.5;9.5 E-learning and quality security of learning based on the concept of competencies ( CQ- E);157
6.8;10 Quality of e-learning products;159
6.8.1;10.1 Introduction;159
6.8.2;10.2 Quality criteria;160
6.8.3;10.3 Different categories of criteria;163
6.8.4;10.4 Using the QCC-eL - An example from category 6;165
6.8.5;10.5 Methods and tools of combining a product and a process oriented approach;167
6.8.6;10.6 Outlook;171
6.9;11 Quality evaluation for e-learning in Europe;172
6.9.1;11.1 Introduction: Evaluation for e-learning;172
6.9.2;11.2 Evaluation: What is it about?;173
6.9.3;11.3 Evaluation concepts for e-learning;176
6.9.4;11.4 Evaluation of e-learning;178
6.9.5;11.5 Conclusion: Evaluation of quality on every level;184
6.10;12 Towards a model for structuring diversity: Classifying & finding quality approaches with the EQO model;185
6.10.1;12.1 Introduction;185
6.10.2;12.2 Decision support;187
6.10.3;12.3 How to find a suitable quality approach?;189
6.10.4;12.4 Conclusion;195
7;Part B: E-learning standards;197
7.1;13 The standards jungle: Which standard for which purpose?;198
7.1.1;13.1 Introduction;198
7.1.2;13.2 Standards and standardisation – what are we talking about?;199
7.1.3;13.3 A hot spot on the map – what are the purposes of learning technology standards?;201
7.1.4;13.4 After passing the jungle: What lies ahead?;202
7.1.5;13.5 Good reasons for the use and support of learning technology standards;203
7.1.6;13.6 Lessons learned for future trips through the jungle;204
7.2;14 Architectures and frameworks;205
7.2.1;14.1 Introduction;205
7.2.2;14.2 Quality and e-learning architectures or frameworks;206
7.2.3;14.3 Standardisation: Architectures and frameworks;207
7.2.4;14.4 Practical use of e-learning architectures or frameworks;219
7.3;15 Content and management standards: LOM, SCORM and Content Packaging;221
7.3.1;15.1 Introduction;221
7.3.2;15.2 IEEE learning object metadata (IEEE LOM);223
7.3.3;15.3 IMS content packaging (IMS CP);225
7.3.4;15.4 Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM);227
7.3.5;15.5 A short note on learning design and other didactic standards;231
7.3.6;15.6 Profiling metadata to enhance reusability;231
7.3.7;15.7 Example of use;233
7.3.8;15.8 Future trends;234
7.4;16 Educational interoperability standards: IMS learning design and DIN didactical object model;236
7.4.1;16.1 Introduction on educational interoperability standards;236
7.4.2;16.2 Educational interoperability standards in relation to quality;246
7.4.3;16.3 IMS learning design and DIN didactical object model: Elaboration and comparison;248
7.4.4;16.4 Conclusion;261
7.5;17 Developing and handling learner profiles for European learner information systems;262
7.5.1;17.1 Introduction;262
7.5.2;17.2 Requirements for a European Education Area: The europass framework;264
7.5.3;17.3 Implementing European requirements through learning technology standards;265
7.5.4;17.4 Conclusion;272
7.6;18 Improving European employability with the e-portfolio;273
7.6.1;18.1 Introduction;273
7.6.2;18.2 Related research and experiences;276
7.6.3;18.3 E-portfolio: The concepts;277
7.6.4;18.4 Related specifications;279
7.6.5;18.5 Practical examples which illustrate the quality approach/ concept in practice;282
7.6.6;18.6 Conclusion;283
7.7;19 Interface standards: Integration of learning and business information systems;284
7.7.1;19.1 Introduction;284
7.7.2;19.2 Data standards;287
7.7.3;19.3 Infrastructure standards;292
7.7.4;19.4 Conclusion;297
7.8;20 Facilitating learning objects reusability in different accessibility settings;299
7.8.1;20.1 Introduction54;300
7.8.2;20.2 Methodology for defining an accessibility application profile;301
7.8.3;20.3 An accessibility application profile based on IEEE LOM;304
7.8.4;20.4 Case study: The eAccess project;313
7.8.5;20.5 Conclusions;316
7.9;21 Out of the past and into the future: Standards for technology enhanced learning;317
7.9.1;21.1 Introduction;317
7.9.2;21.2 Overall assumptions and perspectives;319
7.9.3;21.3 Out of the past;320
7.9.4;21.4 Up to the present;320
7.9.5;21.5 Into the future;321
7.9.6;21.6 Medium term future: 2005 to 2010;324
7.9.7;21.7 The long term future: Into the next decade, 2010 and beyond;332
7.9.8;21.8 Conclusion;334
8;Part C: Fields of practice and case studies;336
8.1;22 Organisational and cultural similarities and differences in implementing quality in e-learning in Europe’s higher education;337
8.1.1;22.1 Introduction: Facing with quality in open and distance practices;338
8.1.2;22.2 Methodology and design of the case studies;339
8.1.3;22.3 Quality in higher education: 5 case studies;340
8.1.4;22.4 Organisational and cultural specificities that influence the implementation of quality in higher education institutions in 5 European countries;344
8.1.5;22.5 Examples of quality strategies in institutions offering ODL courses;347
8.1.6;22.6 Summary: Organisational and cultural factors blocking or helping quality implementation;348
8.1.7;22.7 Conclusions: Main challenges for implementation of quality in higher education;352
8.2;23 Rethinking quality for building a learning society;353
8.2.1;23.1 Introduction;353
8.2.2;23.2 The need for a new quality framework;356
8.2.3;23.3 Measuring the quality of learning;359
8.2.4;23.4 Linking learning individuals, communities, organisations and territories for quality;369
8.2.5;23.5 Conclusion for an organic approach to quality;371
8.3;24 Myths and realities in learner oriented e-learning-quality;372
8.3.1;24.1 Learner orientation: Myth or reality in an European quality debate;372
8.3.2;24.2 Learner oriented quality development: Impact on the learning process;374
8.3.3;24.3 Learners’ quality concepts on stake;380
8.3.4;24.4 Learner participation in quality development;389
8.3.5;24.5 Conclusions: Towards e-learning quality through learner orientation;391
8.4;25 The e-learning path model: A specific quality approach to satisfy the needs of customers in e-learning;393
8.4.1;25.1 Introduction;393
8.4.2;25.2 Methodology;395
8.4.3;25.3 The e-learning’s customers;397
8.4.4;25.4 Design of an e-learning path model;398
8.4.5;25.5 Practical uses of this model;408
8.4.6;25.6 Convergent researches;409
8.4.7;25.7 Conclusion;410
8.5;26 Pedagogic quality – supporting the next UK generation of e-learning;411
8.5.1;26.1 Introduction;412
8.5.2;26.2 Methodology of creating a quality reference framework105;413
8.5.3;26.3 Context and rationale;414
8.5.4;26.4 The common framework for e-learning quality;415
8.5.5;26.5 Core pedagogic principles;419
8.5.6;26.6 The 10 principles;420
8.5.7;26.7 Conclusion;424
8.6;27 Quality in cross national business models for technology based educational services;426
8.6.1;27.1 Introduction;426
8.6.2;27.2 Quality as a strategic perspective;427
8.6.3;27.3 The learner as the central reference point for divergent requirements;428
8.6.4;27.4 Learner-oriented quality strategy;429
8.6.5;27.5 Conclusion;434
8.7;28 E-learning quality and standards from a business perspective;435
8.7.1;28.1 Learning and quality;435
8.7.2;28.2 Process quality of e-learning from a business perspective;438
8.7.3;28.3 Significance of standards;442
8.7.4;28.4 Perspectives in the discussion concerning product quality: Objectives for implementing elearning as a mediating category?;442
8.8;29 A framework for quality of learning resources;445
8.8.1;29.1 Introduction;445
8.8.2;29.2 What processes and roles are involved?;446
8.8.3;29.3 Quality aspects of the usage scenario;449
8.9;30 LearnRank: Towards a real quality measure for learning;459
8.9.1;30.1 Introduction115;459
8.9.2;30.2 Early Ariadne experiences;460
8.9.3;30.3 The problem with quality;461
8.9.4;30.4 LearnRank;461
8.9.5;30.5 Conclusion;465
8.10;31 Quality of e-learning in tertiary education: Managing a balance between divergence and convergence;466
8.10.1;31.1 Introduction;467
8.10.2;31.2 Methodologies;467
8.10.3;31.3 Government-led or national initiatives;469
8.10.4;31.4 Institutional strategies: Managing divergence and convergence;477
8.10.5;31.5 Conclusion and implications;483
8.11;32 Best practices for e-learning;485
8.11.1;32.1 Introduction;485
8.11.2;32.2 Design, methodology and summary of results;486
8.11.3;32.3 Best practices in detail;488
8.11.4;32.4 Conclusion;499
9;List of projects, organisations and initiatives;501
10;List of references;513
11;Editors of the handbook;553
12;List of contributors;555
13;Index;570

Leseproben

16 Educational interoperability standards: IMS learning design and DIN didactical object model (S. 225-226)

Michael Klebl

University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany

In emerging educational markets, fostered by developments in learning technology and educational media, not only resources for learning are subject to exchange and trade. Educational services providers design, operate and evaluate complex learning scenarios as a service. Hence, technical interoperability as well as quality issues focus the teaching-learning-process itself. In order to meet this objective, Educational Interoperability Standards propose a framework for a comprehensive description of the teaching-learning-process. This article gives an overview on two alternative Educational Interoperability Standards: IMS Learning Design (IMSLD) and DIN Didactical Object Model (DIN-DOM). The introduction focuses on the paradigmatic shift from description of content to description of process.

How educational interoperability standards add quality is discussed in the second part of this article. The third part presents common core concepts of IMS-LD and DINDOM and gives a comparison of these standards. A description of examples and issues in practical use concludes this article.

16.1 Introduction on educational interoperability standards

16.1.1 From content to process

The notion of a single learner in self-study activities within a long distance learning scenario in interaction with digital learning content is often related closely to the term "e-learning" – it is related so closely that it might not be reflected any more. Nearly all recent approaches to learning with educational media and infor- mation systems have dismissed this notion: When we create blended learning scenarios, we emphasise the integration of web-based self-study and traditional classroom teaching. When we talk about Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), we examine how computer- und web-based tools can be used for learning in groups. On a theoretical level we discuss learner-centred approaches like situated learning and social-constructivist learning.

Roughly speaking, a paradigmatic shift away from a content-based knowledge delivery to a social and learner-centred paradigm can be stated for most parts of the current e-learning discussion. In academic discussion as well as in designing learning scenarios we take care of learner activities, interaction within a group of learners and different supporting roles of teaching staff like tutoring, coaching and informing.

For quite a long time the development of interoperability standards in elearning focussed on learning content. Especially metadata standards and content packaging principles (see part 15) are designed for the management of digital media for education. In these standards only few potential is given to describe how learning (and teaching) in a certain learning scenario may take place. While metadata offer some descriptive information on some educational aspects for a single digital learning resource, content packaging is used to arrange these resources in a certain order. Resources for learning can be various: we consider texts, figures, exercises, lectures, simulations, experiments or problem statements as resources for learning.