http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/dotfolio.html

Thanks to Scott Wilson for reminding me about dotFolio. Coming at this from a open source e-learning perspective I am interested in knowing what the differences might be between the Open ACS family of projects, chiefly .LRN and what have...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/person_specs.html

Not sure if I am barking up the wrong tree. I note that the introduction to IMS e-Portfolio says, tellingly: "The IMS ePortfolio specification was created to make ePortfolios interoperable across different systems and institutions. The ePortfolio specification: * Supports...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/draft_myworld_f_1.html

A draft final report for the myWORLD project has been posted here. We found PETAL/OSP has great potential as an institutional e-portfolio but must, critically, be more adaptable to the user’s skill, confidence and (digital/academic) literacy level/ability, among other things....

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/webtops.html

Flavour of the moment? Harbinger of a web-services world where everything is "out there"? I was led to this topic by a serendipitous post on the Open University H80x alumni mail list. This recommended three rss readers: ProtoPage PageFlake 30Boxes...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/blended_learnin.html

Preliminary scenario description:Blended learning. Blackbird Leys Information Technology Zone (BLITZ) offers innovative blended learning programme for people thinking about making a change:Returning to work? Taking a break from work? Changing job? Going back to college? We propose developing a Moodle...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/discussions_wit.html

I have started useful discussions with Marij Veugelers of the University of Amsterdam. Marij heads up the NL Portfolio Group....

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/myworld_continu.html

The start-up meeting of the myWORLD continuation project took place today: 1200 - 1500 at Oxford Brookes University. Attending: Ellen Lessner (Abingdon and Witney College), Joe Rosa (Blackbird Leys IT Zone), Neil Smith (Knowledge Integration), Chris Foss (Plumpton College), Adja...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/ten_years_to_th.html

Chris Yapp, Head of Public Sector Innovation at Microsoft asserted that we had not seen 10 years worth of change in higher education in the past 10 years. He supported this assertion by making a virtue of the fact that...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/new_connections.html

ALT-SURF-ILTA Spring Conference 6 April 2006 Leiden University altspring2006 Participant notes Technorati Tags: altspring2006...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/02/lifelong_learni.html

Lifelong Learning for all: e-learning from concept to practice conference will explore the role of distributed e-learning through three main themes: Facilitating progression Supporting collaborative teaching and sharing of resources across institutions Supporting the independent lifelong learner...

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/10/renam

I have renamed the site and am checking the uri and all still work. And, have renamed it back. I am setting up a new site for Pathfinding.

test. OK, changing the banner and tag line do nothing to the url.

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/08/bemch

I have today uploaded the following documents to our JISCmail filestore.

For a very concise summary of the project please read the 1-page A4 "poster".

For the consultants final inventory of good practice indicators see the 3-page "Institutional Self Assessment, Brookes Template"

Files:

BrookesBenchPoster01_A4.pdf 1-Page A4 pdf 1.1Mb poster for HEA, ALT-C, internal dissemination [1.2MB 25/08/2006 11:17]

OBHE_Despatch.zip Zip file of full report as sent to OBHE [2.6MB 25/08/2006 11:12]

BrookesIRDv1-7finalGR2006-04-25.doc Final Report as 1.5 Mb Word document [1.6MB 25/08/2006 11:14]

BrookesIRDappendix_intro_v1-3.doc Table of appendices to the report - available in zip file [60.4KB 25/08/2006 11:15]

benchmarkingsummaryLTC.doc Summary of Benchmarking for Learning and Teaching Committee [45.5KB 09/02/2006 09:51]

Institutional_Self_Assessment_Brookes_Template.doc OBHE final Institutional Self Assessment instrument [129KB 25/08/2006 11:22]

We will be organising dissemination events in the upcoming semester.

The poster will have 2 "outings":

- 30 August, HEA Benchmarking Briefing, London with representatives of ~50 HEIs

- 05 September, 1130, ALT-C Symposium 792, "The e-Learning Benchmarking Expeditionary Force"

Please send comments to:

George Roberts: groberts at brookes

John Lidgey: lidgey at brookes

Rhona Sharpe: rsharpe at brookes

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/08/bench

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.

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/07/brook

BESLES is evolving and there is Teaching Enhancement funding available for bidding. We will be mapping BESLES to the e-Learning Strategy.

A BESLES wiki is here.

This will be opened for comment shortly.

The community will be alerted by several channels, including this blog and e-mail lists. Remember to subscribe to this blog with your news reader. Point your newsreader here.

Technorati Tags: C4eL, strategy

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/06/insti

Our summary information sheet for the meeting of 21 June follows

Original rationale for your participation in the e-benchmarking exercise?

We believed that we could contribute positively to shaping the benchmarking exercise and wished to be included in the pilot phase. We asserted that both a top-down and a bottom-up approach is essential to the successful management of change and to the building of bridges across institutional hierarchies and cultures. In such an environment, complex organisational relationships evolve that cannot be reduced to, nor be mapped onto simple organisational diagrams. Yet it is these complex relationships that stimulate, facilitate and enable positive and productive change.

Through participating in the Benchmarking Pilot we aimed to:

• help develop and formalise the quantitative metrics and qualitative descriptors of e-learning achievement for the sector based on exposing and reflectively evaluating our own assumptions through a critical ethnomethodological approach;

• expose ways that we have been “doing e-learning” as situated reasoning, and how and why everyday social/institutional structures and communities emerge and achieve their organisation and order.

We also had an aim of raising awareness of e-learning developments at Brookes and wanted to use benchmarking as a means of driving forward pedagogical change.

Modifications to the rationale in the light of experience?

Can there be post-hoc modification to what we intended to do? If we had to do it differently next time, we would try to get direct access to end-user learners and would focus more sharply on defining and validating proxy measures of value for money.

Anticipated scope of the e-benchmarking activity, e.g. institution, faculty, department?

The whole institution.

Actual scope of the e-benchmarking activity and why?

With the support of the Deputy VC (Academic) and SMT we were successful in getting responses from

• the Deans of all the Academic Schools

• the Directors or other Senior Managers of all the support Directorates

• A wide selection of lecturers, course team leaders, managers, and administrators (see below: who was involved)

Who was involved and what was their role?

The Benchmarking Project was managed by:

• John Lidgey, Professor, Assistant Dean, School of Technology

• Rhona Sharpe, Senior Staff and Educational Developer

• George Roberts, Development Director, Off-campus e-Learning.

Other members of the functional team included:

• Stuart Brown, Head of Corporate Information Systems

• Richard Francis, Head of Media Workshop

• Jan Haines, Head of Academic Library Services

• Greg Benfield, Educational Developer (Learning Technologies)

• Alan Betteridge, Head of QA

• Keith Cooper, Head of Student Services

• Tim Bolton, Head of Finance

• Simon Carr, Principal Lecturer, School of Social Sciences and Law

• Irmgard Huppe, Learning Technologist, School of Health and Social Care

• Angie Phillip, Head of Open and Continuing Education

• Clive Robertson, Head of Student Learning Experience

As at 21 April there were 41 responses from SMT, Deans, Managers and Senior Managers, Academic Staff at all levels, Learning Technologists.

Affordances from taking part in the e-benchmarking exercise?

• Awareness raising

• Institutional profile building

• Comparisons with other HEIs

• Inter-departmental and functional dialogue

• Renewed enthusiasm and interest in e-learning

• Continued discussion about meanings of learning and e-learning

• Recognition of need to better understand relationship between physical and virtual space

Constraints, institutional reactions, unexpected issues?

• Continuing challenge in identifying meaningful cost benefit analysis figures

• What are direct e-learning costs and what are technological externalities

• Recognition that costing is political

Would you do anything differently if you were to start again?

• We might ask that HEA through UUK make contact at VC level. An even stronger push from the top could help.

• OBHE Benchmarking instrument could be improved for easier disaggregation (e.g. absolute numbering of questions)

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best) rate your experience of e-benchmarking? – why?

8: very good process for internal reflection, but:

• time intensive

• scheduling of related activities not well co-ordinated (Pathfinder bids due before meeting of 21st and JISC Capital Programme due on 22nd. This should have been taken into account when planning Benchmarking pilot activities)

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best) rate the e-benchmarking tools you used – why?

7: the OBHE tool was somewhat overlong. We disaggregated it for distribution to individuals across the university taking into account their capacity to answer different kinds of questions. We also felt that the tool made assumptions about the nature of organisational management that did not map as well as it might onto practices at this University.

What next?

• Internal dissemination

• Inter-departmental benchmarking

• Benchmarking within disciplines across institutions

• Repeat exercise bi-annually?

Lessons for e-benchmarking phase 1 institutions and the wider sector?

• Embedding e-learning is best achieved through a consensual approach and agreed strategy. This requires careful co-ordination. The process of change is significant and this change must be given adequate time to be implemented.

• Policies and practices must ensure that vision, strategy and action plan are aligned. Strategy is not merely forward planning. Strategies must have some longevity. Institutions must have a clear sense of the benefits they want to achieve and how those benefits are measured.

• Having the buy-in of the central management group is vital. It is important to demonstrate how the SMT regards e-learning as important. The form of this demonstration may differ according to local/institutional-cultural variables.

• Universities’ units of academic resource which drive finance and administrative systems are based on traditional face-to-face models: hours expressed as ratios of classroom to preparation time, courses described in terms of “contact hours”, space-use predicated on twice or thrice-weekly “lectures”. The same models underlie the HEI funding and QA regimes. These “units” serve to enforce conservative practices. There needs to be a review of learning and teaching practices (e- and non-e- ) in HE today and a subsequent adjustment of funding and QA models to reflect and value current (and future) good practice.

• To a certain extent e-learning has been driven by many social and cultural factors. Many different models exist. We might have worked harder to understand the true cost of doing what we did. We might have resourced central support services more lavishly, but this would have been at the expense of other equally worthy pursuits.

• Although eyes continue to roll, it must be emphasised that definitions are important and that there still is not a clear understanding of what e-learning means. If we take a broad definition, “use of IT in learning and teaching”, then almost all university teaching practice is “e-learning”. There is some sympathy for this position. Is it time to lose the “e” and just speak of “learning”? In contrast, there is concern that if the “e” is lost then so too might the pedagogical developments which are emblematised by e-learning. Nevertheless it is important that e-learning not be defined as transmissive, CBT without face-to-face contact. The preferred definition appears to be “blended learning in a technology-rich environment”, with an awareness that the e- affords:

o time shifting

o location shifting

o flexible scheduling

o distributed collaboration and new partnerships

o access to resources on previously unimaginable scale

o greatly accelerated feedback.

• The results of the pilot may be as much statements of current practice as of good practice. While clearly good-practice statements can be derived from the exercise we are concerned that results might be used normatively rather than as a reflective tool for institutional improvement.

• Ways of talking about success and good practice must include the understanding that good teaching sets ground rules, provides alternatives, exemplifies models and gives access to experience, reciprocity, authenticity and credibility while:

o increasing student-tutor, student-student contact and cooperation

o promoting active learning

o giving prompt feedback

o maximising time on task

o communicating of high expectations

o accommodating multiple learning styles and cultural diversity

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/05/findi

What are we looking for as we try to find the path?  I have been reading Derek Morrison's post, Towards a generic framework for benchmarking e-learning and the interesting follow up commentaries by Terry Mayes and David Nicol. These posts deal with the interplay between abstractions and the concrete world. This is not just ineffectual theorising. Abstract institutions: e.g. education, religion, the family, or more finly grained ones: e.g. higher education are in constant dialogue with the concrete manifestations of those abstractions.

Custom and practice in higher education is preserved in abstractions and manifested in the concrete. Any representation of an abstraction - that is not an actual concrete institution - is a model. All models are structured reductions of complexity; a model is, of course, simpler than the reality it purports to represent. Benchmarking is a process by which we might decide what to include in our institutional models and what to leave out. This will shape our reality. The principles according to which a model is made dictate what aspects of reality are manifested in the model and which are externalised. Derek argues that the principle that should underlie benchmarking is the student learning experience (SLE). One challenge that faces us is to recognise that formal, front-of-stage assertions of institutional purpose, mission or strategy are models. They reduce and structure reality. A key point, made by Derek, is that a university may be a "complex heterogeneous network of communities". We approached our benchmarking exercise with this as an axiom and are developing our pathfinding ideas around the concept of communities. But this is not exactly the same as the SLE.

At Brookes we are developing a new Student Learning Experience Strategy. What I want to argue is, however, that if we focus solely on the student learning experience, we will not achieve the enhancement of that experience that we so desire. Part of the problem is in our conceptualisation of a "student". While Brookes is not alone in this, we are perhaps more than most, dominated by a model of the student that is 18-21, in full-time education, on the Undergraduate Modular Programme (UMP). Yet we have ambitions to be more than a finishing school. We want to encourage research, widen participation, grow post-graduate study and forge local, regional and international links. Paradoxically, I believe that if we concentrate on the SLE, when our model of a student is an undergraduate, we will not attend to these wider ambitions and, as a consequence, the experience of our undergraduates will suffer.

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/04/brook

Agenda

• Review the returns so far


• preliminary coding discussion update blog


• Identify significant gaps


• Confirm attendance at events:


• 8-9 June 15 June


• Confirm next team meeting 24 May 1000


• Dissemination of results

Agenda

Review the returns so far

We reviewed our list and observed that returns are very good,

For certain outstanding returns:

• GR will contact Simon Carr for SSL e-Learning Champ return, and prepare financial questions for Tim Bolton meeting on 13 April


• John Fielden advises that we do not have time to pursue a random sampling of "average normal" academics.


• John Lidgey will send Stuart Brown the same questionnaire as Chris Coghill, contact Doug Higgison, Diana Woodhouse and Kate Williams for Upgrade


• Greg Benfield will mail reminder to LT's Forum.

There was an extensive discussion about anomalous responses under Institutional Drivers. John will contact and discuss.

preliminary coding discussion

We reviewed the draft Summary of Environmental Scan (see Rhona Sharpe paper here). This needs to be set in context with a bit of perspective and history

We agreed that sections would be summarised by the following:

• 1, 2, 4 George & John


• 3 Angie


• 5, 6, 8 Rhona


• 7 Angie and George

Note: Angie to provide bullet point in respect of off-campus teaching/finance experience derived from MA TESOL

Need advice on reusing materials in context of large lecture courses. WebCT? Academic digital literacy, material not ready on time, need conserving methods that facilitate adaptation of off the shelf materials.

Section D will be drafted after summaries have been circulated.

Confirm attendance at events:

This question exposes one issue to do with the Benchmarking Team working process.

8-9 June

This meeting is only for the OBHE group of participants.

George and John will attend from Brookes. We would like to have someone attend who is not part of the Benchmarking team. Clive Robertson to be invited. John Fielden to draft letter to Petra Wend to ask to nominate Clive or a member of SMT or a Dean and/or Keith Cooper, Alan Betteridge, Stuart Brown to attend. John L will write following receipt of John F's draft.

21 June

This meeting is for the whole pilot. Benchmarking core team to attend.

Confirm next team meeting

Wednesday 24 May 2006 1000 room tba

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/03/telep

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.

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/03/bench

Dear all

Benchmarking e-Learning at Brookes, Progress Review, further to meetings and activity:

• Benchmarking meeting with John Fielden, 23 February, 2006


• Benchmarking Steering Group meeting, 1 March 2006


• Brookes e-Learning Forum, 9 March 2006


• Project Review, GR, FJL, 13 March 2006


• Project Review, GR, FJL, 17 March 2006


• Conference call with Terry Mayes, "Critical Friend" to HEA/JISC benchmarking project


• Project Review, GR, FJL, 20 March 2006

Notes continue ...

Please note: Our next full team benchmarking meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 4 April from 1000 - 1200 in a room tba.  Full question set broken down:

Individual questions for

• Senior Staff



• Deans



• Directors



• e-Learning Champions



• Learning Technologists



• Academic Staff

Questionnaires despatched to 49 individuals. 

Additional Circulation through:

• Clive Robertson, Head of Learning and Teaching Development to Principal Lectures with responsibility for Learning and Teaching



• Alan Betteridge, Head of Quality Assurance to School Link QALeads



• Richard Francis, Head of Media Workshop, to Learning Technologists Forum 

Questionnaire posted to website, where full document can be downloaded.

As of Friday 17 March, 26 Returns received from:

• Petra Wend, DVC, Academic


• Mars Street, Asst Dean, School of Built Environment


• Helen Workman, Director, Library and Information Services


• Paul Large, Director, Finance and Legal Services


• Mike Ratcliffe, Director, Academic and Student Affairs


• Anne Gwinnett,


• Ian King, Director, Estates and Facilities


• Bob Price, Director, Human Resources


• Clive Robertson, Head of Learning and Teaching Developments


• Andrea Cheshire, Head of Strategic Planning


• Ed Trewhella, Head of UK Marketing


• Chris Coghill, Assistant Director, Academic Computing


• Chris Rust, Director, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD)


• Alan Betteridge, Head of Quality Assurance


• Jan Haines, Head of Academic Library Services


• Greg Benfield, Educational Developer (e-Learning)


• Peter Bradley, e-Learning Champion, School of Health and Social Care


• Peter Zaagman, e-Learning Champion, School of Health and Social Care


• Andrew Rosenthal (in 2 different capacities): e-Learning Champion/Learning Technologist, School of Biological and Molecular Sciences


• Virginia Crossman, e-Learning Champion, School of Arts and Humanities


• Jonathan Allen, e-Learning Champion, Westminster Institute of Education


• Berry O'Donovan, e-Learning Champion, Business School


• Gina Ennis-Reynolds, e-Learning Champion, School of the Built Environment


• Brian Marshall, Head of Learning and Teaching, Westminster Institute of Education


• Margaret Price, Head of Learning and Teaching, Business School

Thank you to all who despatched and returned questions and responses so far, and to those yet to do so ;-)

Action:

• John will undertake to pursue returns from Deans, Senior Staff, outstanding e-Learning Champs and SMT


• Richard, please pursue returns from Learning Technologists and Media Workshop.


• Clive, please pursue returns from Schools' Learning and Teaching Representatives, PLs L&T and Teaching Fellows.


• George and Rhona, update analytical structure/coding scheme.

Our next full team benchmarking meeting with John Fielden (ACU/OBHE) is scheduled for Tuesday 4 April from 1000 - 1200 in a room tba.

http://my-world.typepad.com/brookes_elearning_benchma/2006/02/about

Benchmarking e-Learning: Communities, Environments, Efficiency

Oxford Brookes University has been successful in a bid to the Higher Education Academy to be an e-Learning Benchmarking pilot . This places us among the 12 leading e learning universities in Britain.

Benchmarking is intended to be developmental and to provide institutions with an opportunity to take stock of where they are in regard to e-learning. We hope to refine and integrate our existing tools into institutional systems and assess their usefulness. Information gathered will be used to inform the development of our Enhancing Student Learning Experience strategy as well as the HEFCE e-learning strategy and HEA and JISC activities.

Brookes will be supported by the Association of Commonwealth Universities in a sub-group with: Warwick University, Coventry University, Warwickshire College, and the University of London Institute of Education.

Our draft Student Learning Experience Strategy leads with the assertion that we will:

develop innovative approaches to learning, teaching and assessment particularly with regard to e-learning and more flexible and convenient opportunities for learning...

By 2002, we had rolled out Brookes Virtual, appointed a Head of e-Learning, and had an e-learning strategy. In 2003 we began to determine targets we wanted to measure: through the web presence and School strategies. We developed expertise in evaluating e learning. We have a shared language through the Modes of Engagement (see annex) signifying increasingly effective face-to-face, flexible and distributed learning. Our focus has always been on enhancing learning. Now we will:

• Explore the effectiveness of communities who are embedding e learning including: academic practitioners and course teams, e-L Champions, Learning Technologists
  
• Benchmark our learning environments, services and facilities, real and virtual
  
• Benchmark efficiency; has e-learning made better use of resources?
  

We will work with our Benchmarking Team, the HEA consultants and our institutional group to determine the categories to be considered. Our first draft identifies:

• Learning and teaching practice
  
• Summative assessment and examination
  
• School & University level strategies
  
• Brookes student experience of e-learning
  
• Research and development in e-learning
  
• Staffing and staff development
  
• Communities of learning
  
• QA processes
  
• Learning resources
  
• Estates and infrastructure
  
• Finance
  
• Recruitment and marketing.
  

For each we will consider and agree qualitative descriptors and quantitative key performance indicators in line with HEFCE’s strategic aims for the sector, whereby:

• Technical issues have been addressed to give better value for money
  
• Students access information, support, expertise and guidance, and communicate with each other effectively wherever they are
  
• Tutors have tools to enable better communication feedback and targeted support
  
• Subject communities share materials to produce customised high quality courses
  
• Institutions have integrated learning and registration functions
  
• Lifelong learning networks support connectivity between institutions
  
• Staff are supported at all stages to develop appropriate skills in e-learning.
  
• ICT is commonly accepted into all aspects of the student experience
  

Our Benchmarking team will be managed by: Rhona Sharpe and George Roberts, and comprises: John Lidgey, Alan Betteridge, Keith Cooper, Tim Bolton, Jan Haynes, Angie Phillip, Richard Francis, Greg Benfield, Simon Carr, and Irmgard Huppe.

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/recent_developm.html The myWORLD continuation project is working on case studies at: Abingdon and Witney College Plumpton College Association for Learning Technology Blackbird Leys Community Learning Centre Oxford Brookes University This is a brief update report. We have set up a Sakai...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/dotfolio.html Thanks to Scott Wilson for reminding me about dotFolio. Coming at this from a open source e-learning perspective I am interested in knowing what the differences might be between the Open ACS family of projects, chiefly .LRN and what have...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/person_specs.html Not sure if I am barking up the wrong tree. I note that the introduction to IMS e-Portfolio says, tellingly: "The IMS ePortfolio specification was created to make ePortfolios interoperable across different systems and institutions. The ePortfolio specification: * Supports...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/draft_myworld_f_1.htm A draft final report for the myWORLD project has been posted here. We found PETAL/OSP has great potential as an institutional e-portfolio but must, critically, be more adaptable to the user’s skill, confidence and (digital/academic) literacy level/ability, among other things....

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/webtops.html Flavour of the moment? Harbinger of a web-services world where everything is "out there"? I was led to this topic by a serendipitous post on the Open University H80x alumni mail list. This recommended three rss readers: ProtoPage PageFlake 30Boxes...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/blended_learnin.html Preliminary scenario description:Blended learning. Blackbird Leys Information Technology Zone (BLITZ) offers innovative blended learning programme for people thinking about making a change:Returning to work? Taking a break from work? Changing job? Going back to college? We propose developing a Moodle...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/discussions_wit.html I have started useful discussions with Marij Veugelers of the University of Amsterdam. Marij heads up the NL Portfolio Group....

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/myworld_continu.html The start-up meeting of the myWORLD continuation project took place today: 1200 - 1500 at Oxford Brookes University. Attending: Ellen Lessner (Abingdon and Witney College), Joe Rosa (Blackbird Leys IT Zone), Neil Smith (Knowledge Integration), Chris Foss (Plumpton College), Adja...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/ten_years_to_th.html Chris Yapp, Head of Public Sector Innovation at Microsoft asserted that we had not seen 10 years worth of change in higher education in the past 10 years. He supported this assertion by making a virtue of the fact that...

http://my-world.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/new_connections.html ALT-SURF-ILTA Spring Conference 6 April 2006 Leiden University altspring2006 Participant notes Technorati Tags: altspring2006...