http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/03/telephone_confe.html
Terry Mayes has been engaged to serve as a "critical friend" to the e-learning benchmarking programme. In this capacity, He is talking to all pilot sites. He aims to get an idea of institutional diversity, not only on the process of benchmarking and how it might be helpful to go through a benchmarking exercise but also on the situation at each institute regarding the impact of e-learning.
We spoke for about 40 minutes after agreeing ground rules.
It is too early in the process for us to say how we feel about it yet. We can only say what we know now. Through benchmarking we are illuminating some areas that were previously dark and raising awareness significantly across the University. We are also conscious of a heritage of using technology in support fo learning and teaching innovation.
It has been important that the Deputy Vice Chancellor - Academic fired the starting gun. And, HEFCE leverage via JISC/HEA has been important.
We see this exercise in the context of 10-year programme which has evolutionary and emergent properties. We emphasised Brookes heritage of reflection in respect of learning and teaching in environments where there is reasonable penetration of ICT, from the Modular Programme to today.
We said that we had begun to benchmark ourselves through the Modes of Engagement approach. The modes of engagement reveal at least a finer-grained analysis of what is being done. Through this we can link to general models of good practice [note, Mayes observes, our consultants could work on that]. We agreed that HEFCE's e-learning strategy was on the radar.
Are we learning what we didn't know already? We were benchmarked by OBHE about two years ago. There is some longitudinality in our approach. In some ways we are replicating an experiment to prove the methodology, but on balance we are discovering new things. Particularly that absence of data alerts us to surprises: don't they know what's going on over there.
We observe that the e-Learning Strategy is being closely associated with with the emerging Student Experience Strategy.
In respect of Benchmarking programme groups, we are pleased that we are in a smaller group simply because of the workload required to keep up with all 12 profect pilot sites. We do not feel constrained by being in small group. Want to share across all 3 sub-groups, subsequently. We feel all groups are now in a period of intense introspection. Don't expect much collaboration immediately. Lets see what spills out when we put our bundles on the table next month.
We have had a broad spectrum of responses: see previous post.
What measures are useful? Do we have confidence in how much it costs us? Are they learning "faster"? Can we streamline the pace to graduation?
Terry thinks there are 2 ends of spectrum:
- Institutions that have got a VLE "got a grip".
- And those where there are 100 flowers blooming with social software tools being used in an innovative way. He asks, "Is the whole exercise too focussed on the VLE end?"
We briefly explored the Brookes Centre for e-Learning Structure and reporting direct to DVC Academic. We also note the financial devolution to Schools and Directorates. Centre for e-Learning has, therefore a consultancy role to look at developments.: to act as custodians of strategy with links to schools through e-L Champ/PL Academic; Learning technologist(s). There is a separate staff development outfit with links through many learning and teaching affiliates.
We are concerned that exercises that focus on quantifiable measures are at risk of discoveriing the cost but not the value. The rich features of an approach that it is focussed on qualitative outcomes are valuable and important to capture.
