EMM v2.3 O2

'''O2. Institutional learning and teaching policy and strategy explicitly address e-learning'''

Background
Inglis (2007) found that there are 2 broad types of ways in which institutions are communicating e-learning strategy. The first is through discrete e-learning strategy documents and the second is embedding e-learning strategy in more general documents. Comparison of the documents at many universities showed that when e-learning strategies are embedded in general documents that the range of aspects of e-learning covered tends to be less. Inglis concludes that there is currently no consensus on what information these documents should contain or how they ought to be structured. However, he speculates that employing a standard approach will bring benefits to universities and groups of universities.

Jamieson (2004) notes that e-learning brings pedagogical, technological, and operational challenges to teaching practice (p. 22). E–learning involves a ‘major realignment of the institutions organizational identity’ (p. 26) that calls for intensive, strategic professional development activity. Garrison and Anderson (2003) identify ten topics that should be considered for strategic planning and policy: 1. Vision; 2. Needs and risk assessment; 3. Description of educational principles and outcomes; 4. Implementation initiatives and strategy; 5. Infrastructure; 6. Infostructure; 7. Support services; 8. Budget and resources; 9. Research and development; 10. Benchmarking (p. 108). They also comment that sustainable innovation emerges through middle-level leadership rather top down or bottom up management approaches. Turoff, Discenza, and Howard (2004) note that the e-learning environment “will make the quality of teaching more visible to the public and prospective students” (p. 18), thus making learning and teaching policy and strategy more imperative.

Evidence of capability in this process is seen in the provision of a complete and redeveloped set of institutional strategies and policies incorporating a thoughtful and strategic assessment of the contribution e-learning can make to the institution, disciplines, staff and students. Staff involved in e-learning design and (re)development projects and initiatives need support and guidance in effectively applying the revised policies and strategies and ideally they, along with students, should be involved in the (re)development of the policies and strategies.

Related Guidelines and Standards
This process is informed by: Quality On the Line: Benchmarks for success in internet-based distance education (Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A., 2000) institutional support benchmark set; Queensland University of Technology teaching capabilities framework (2004/2005); Canadian Recommended E-learning Guidelines (Barker, K., 2002); Balancing quality and access: Principles of good practice for electronically offered academic degree and certificate programs (Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, 2003) and; ADEC guiding principles for distance learning (American Distance Education Consortium, 2002).