http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/08/benchmarking_ai.html
I met Geoffrey Mitchell from QUT yesterday, who is researching benchmarking. Our conversation got me thinking more about our aims around going into benchmarking. On reflection we really had as many as four.
1) to be seen and to make public our work as an expression of and maybe evidence for the institutionally stated mission to be "one of the best" (the slippery slope of all benchmarking?), backed up by pathfinder money; this wraps up a host of extrinsic drivers including league tables and post hoc validation of historic strategic decisions
2) to better understand how elearning might enhance learning, given Brookes's drive to elearning was led by the aim of enhancing learning, rather than, primarily for increasing numbers, diluting staff:student ratios, or improving cost measures. We never argued for a necessary elearning discount; we always argued that, if anything, there could be an elearning premium. This does not mean that we can't use learning technology as a part of a response to educational needs in an increasingly resource limited environment. We also believe elearning is a necessary part of providing a "professionally authentic learning experience"
3) so, given any set of activities consumes resources and given resources are not unlimited can we have any confidence that our resources are well directed? We are interested to know cost benefits but not as a part of a collective race to the bottom. This does not mean squandering resources or gold plating anything; how do you properly value, cost and price elearning?
4) and looking ahead, to better understand what new learners' needs and requirements (net generation, digital native influx) are and how to respond to them.
If I were more properly learner-centred I might have led with the last, but that would not tell the story. At least we get there in the end.
