Quality models and standards in education

From EduTech Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This article or section is a stub. A stub is an entry that did not yet receive substantial attention from editors, and as such does not yet contain enough information to be considered a real article. In other words, it is a short or insufficient piece of information and requires additions.

Draft

1 Introduction

This article should summarize approaches used to evaluate educational systems or parts of educational system or aspects of educational systems such as technology-enhanced learning.

2 Evaluation grids

2.1 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning (USA)

  1. Student Eligibility
    • All students are digital learners.
  2. Student Access
    • All students have access to high quality digital learning.
  3. Personalized Learning
    • All students can use digital learning to customize their education.
  4. Advancement
    • All students progress based on demonstrated competency.
  5. Quality Content
    • Digital content and courses are high quality.
  6. Quality Instruction
    • Digital instruction is high quality.
  7. Quality Choices
    • All students have access to multiple high quality digital providers.
  8. Assessment and Accountability
    • Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content and instruction.
  9. Funding
    • Funding creates incentives for performance, options and innovation.
  10. Delivery
    • Infrastructure supports digital learning.

- 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning, and 2012 Digital Learning Report Card, retrieved 14:16, 27 March 2013 (CET).

3 Links

3.1 General

3.2 Introduction/use of ICT

  • 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning Quote: “was released at the 2010 Excellence in Action National Summit on Education Reform in Washington, DC. During the fall of 2010, the Digital Learning Council defined the elements and identified the actions that need to be taken by lawmakers and policymakers to foster a high-quality, customized education for all students. This includes technology-enhanced learning in traditional schools, online and virtual learning, and blended learning that combines online and onsite learning.”

4 References and bibliography

4.1 Osiannilsson Bibliography

This bibliography on "Quality models in online and open education around the globe" was reproduced from Ossiannilsson et al. 2015 [1]

It is available under a Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license, i.e. you must cite the above reference

  • Bacsich P (2006) The relevance of the MIT90s framework to benchmarking e-learning. MIT90s-survey-published 15th Sept 2006.
  • Barefoot H, Gamble M, O’Hare D, Kuit J, Mellar H, Newland B , Papaefthimiou M; Martin Oliver; Webb E (2011) A Toolkit for Harnessing Quality Assurance Processes for Technology-enhanced Learning. QAE.
  • Camilleri A F, Ehlers U & Pawlowski J (2014) State of the art review of quality issues related to Open Educational Resources (OER). JRC Scientific and policy reports. Institute for Prospective technological Studies (IPTS).
  • Camilleri A F & Tannhäuser A C (2013) Assessment and Recognition of Open Learning. In Openness and Education (Vol. 1). Emerald Group.
  • CHEA (CHEA International quality group) (January 2014) Higher Education outside Colleges and Universities: How do we measure quality? Policy brief number 2. Washington: CHEA International quality group.
  • Dahl Jörgensen M, Kristensen S, Wipf A & Delplace S (2014) Quality tools for professional education review and improvement. PHExcel Consortium
  • Daniel Sir J (1996) Mega Universities and Knowledge Media. Technology strategies for Higher Education. Routledge.
  • Devedzic V, Scpanovic S & Kraljevski (2011) E-learning benchmarking. Methodology and tools review. Report 1.3. DL@Web. Tempus project. URI: http://www.dlweb.kg.ac.rs/
  • European Commission (2014) The European Union’s High level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. New modes of learning and teaching in universities.
  • Ehlers U D (2013) A Guide to quality, evaluation and assessment for future learning. New York: Springer.
  • Frydenberg J (2002) Quality standards in e-learning: A matrix of analyses. The International Review Research in Open and Distance Learning 3(2).
  • Gaebel M, Kupriyanova V, Morais R & Colucci W (2014) E-learning in European Higher Education institutions. Results of a mapping survey conducted in October-December 2013. Brussels: European University Association (EUA).
  • Hegde G & Ponmudiraj B (Ed) (2013) Guidelines for the Creation of the internal quality assurance cell (IQAC) and submission of annual quality assurance report (AQAR) in accredited institutions. National assessment and accreditation council. Nagarbhavi, Bangalore: AQAAR.
  • ICDE Strategic plan 2013.2016. URI: www.icde.org
  • Lifewide Learning & Education in Universities and Colleges, Edited by Norman Jackson N & Jenny Willis J (Eds) (2014) Lifewide Learning & Education in Universities and College. URI: http://www.learninglives.co.uk/
  • James R, Tynan B, Marshall, Webster L, Suddaby G & Lewis R (2011) Regulatory framework for distance education: A pilot study in the Southwest Pacific/south East Asia region. Final report. December 2011. ICDE.
  • Jaschik S & Ledeman D (Eds 2014) Survey of faculty attitudes on technology. A study by Gallup and Inside Higher Ed. Washington: Gallup and Inside higher ed.
  • Jung I, Meng Wong & Belawati T (2013) Quality assurance in distance education and e-learning. Challenges and solutions from Asia. Los Angeles: SAGE.
  • Kawachi (2014) Quality assurance guidelines for Open Educational Resources: TIPS Framework. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia, New Delhi.
  • Op de Beek I, Camilleri A F & Bijnes M (2012) Research results on European and international e-learning quality, certification and benchmarking schemes and methodologies. VISCED project. background documentation and project research results. Brussels: EFQUEL. The Open Education Handbook, LinkedUp. URI: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3v5eAZeR0ERWmo1aDdRVWtNUkU/view
  • Ossiannilsson E (2012) Benchmarking e-learning in Higher Education: lessons learned from international projects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oulu Graduate School; University of Oulu, Faculty of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu, Finland. URI: http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9789526200415/isbn9789526200415.pdf
  • Punie Y (2104) Report and recommendations Foresights on Open Education 2030. European Commission Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
  • Rama K, Hope A (Ed) & Coomaraswamy U (Co- ed) (2009) Quality assurance toolkit for distance Higher Education institutions and programmes. Trust, access, innovation, cost-effective, faculty satisfaction, learning effectiveness, continuous improvement, excellence, leadership. Commonwealth of learning. Vancouver: Commonwealth of learning.
  • Rosewell J (January 2004) OpenupEd label, quality benchmarks for MOOCs. Heerlen: EADTU.
  • Rosewell J & Jansen D (2014) The OpenupEd quality label: benchmarks for MOOCs. Volume 2, No 3, 2014 and Special Issue on Quality in Massive Open Online Courses. INNOQUAL – International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning. URI: http://papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/160
  • Rodrigo C, Read T, Santamaria M, & Sánchez-Elvira A (2014) OpenupEd Label for MOOCs quality assurance: UNED COMA initial self-evaluation. Proceedings of V Congreso Internacional sobre Calidad y Accesibilidad en la Formación Virtual (CAFVIR 2014) L. Bengoechea, R. Hernández, & J. R. Hilera (Eds.), Universidad Galileo (Guatemala), pp. 551 – 555 ISBN: 978-9929-40-497-7.

The Arab Organisation for Quality Assurance in Education (AROQA) – The Digital Education Initiative Holds the Founding Meeting of the Digital Education Accreditation Taskforce. URI: http://aroqa.org/article/25716/The-Digital-Education-Initiative-Holds-the-Founding-Meeting-of-the-Digital-Education-Accreditation-Taskforce

4.2 Cited references

  1. Ossiannilsson, Ebba; Williams, Keith; Camilleri, Anthony F.; Brown, Mark: Quality models in online and open education around the globe. State of the art and recommendations. Oslo : International Council for Open and Distance Education 2015, 52 S. - URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-108795