EMM Citations

eMM Citations
These are papers and reports that cite the eMM. Other research papers are listed either in the eMM Bibliography page or the Background Literature Bibliography page.

Adaktilou, N., G. Kalkanis, C. Cartalis, A. Prinias. (2009). A learning platform for the introduction of Remote Sensing principles and applications in Higher Education. 2nd Workshop Education and Training: From Research to Teaching in Schools and Universities. Chania, Greece.


 * A case study detailing the creation of an online learning platform teaching ‘remote sensing’ to physics students. Marshall & Mitchell (2002) is cited for their claim that many institutions are struggling to realize minimal educational value of e-learning.

Alaeddini, M. and A. Kardan (2010). E-learning governance - Towards an applicable framework. Education Technology and Computer (ICETC), 2010 Shanghai.


 * Discusses e-learning governance and formulates a framework for extending IT governance principles to all stages of e-learning. Reviews research on e-learning governance and cites the eMM as an example.

Albeanu, G. (2007). E-learning Metrics. The 2nd International Conference on Virtual Learning.


 * Reviews the e-learning capability and maturity models (including Marshall & Mitchell 2007). Proposes a fuzzy logic based method for estimating e-learning capability and maturity.

Anacleto, J., A. de Carvalho, V. Neris, M. Godoi, S. Zem-Mascarenhas, A. Neto. (2006). How Can Common Sense Support Instructors with Distance Education? XVII Simposio Brasileiro de Informatica na Educacao SBIE.


 * Refers to Marshall & Mitchell (2004) noting that there is often a lack of good institutional planning. Often development relies on individual heroics.

Awidi, I. (2008). "Critical Factors in Selecting a Course Management System for Higher Education in Ghana." Educause Quarterly(1).


 * Surveys the three main universities in Ghana in an attempt to determine which is the best course management system for the Ghanaian context. References the eMM when discussing management’s role in selecting a CMS. Management must ensure the system has the capability to support e-learning.

Bacsich, P. Theory of Benchmarking for e-Learning: A Top-Level Literature Review


 * Large literature review on benchmarking in higher education. Details the eMM as one possible framework.

Bacsich, P. (2005). Benchmarking e-Learning: An Overview for UK HE.


 * Proposes the ‘Pick & Mix’ toolkit for benchmarking higher education in the UK. Lists the eMM as one of the main tools available for benchmarking e-learning that could be deployed in UK.

Bacsich, P. (2005). Evaluating Impact of E-learning: Benchmarking. eLearning Conference. Brussels.


 * Discusses return on investment for e-learning and also introduces benchmarking as the best way for European Universities to remain competitive in a global market. Describes the eMM among other benchmarking techniques.

Bacsich, P. (2008). "The national UK universities benchmarking e-learning programme."


 * Uses information from over 40 institutions and describes key lessons learned from the UK programme on benchmarking elearning in universities. There is a particular focus on Pick&Mix which started as just one of five methodologies originally piloted, but in the current phase is the only one used. Notes that eMM was one of the original methodologies used and describes some of the pros and cons of this.

Bacsich, P. (2009). Benchmarking E-learning in UK Universities: Lessons from and for the International Context, Matic Media Ltd and Sero Consulting Ltd, UK.


 * Traces the history and features of the benchmarking methodology ‘Pick & Mix’ in the UK and explains how other countries can use a similar methodology. Outlines eMM as an alternative framework but notes that it is much more cumbersome than Pick & Mix, if more thorough.

Baker, S., B. Ferguson, M. Roberts, K. Fielden. (2003). "Five Years of Online Learning Research in New Zealand: A Review." Bulletin of Information Technology Research 1(1).


 * Reviews online learning research in NZ 1998-2003. Concluding that it lacks focus, and the studies are small. Marshall & Mitchell (2002) is identified as one of the discussion papers produced in NZ during the study time period.

'''Baruque, L., C. Baruque, R. Melo. '''(2006). Towards Metrics for the Assessment of Web-Based Education. 9th International Conference on Engineering Education. San Juan, PR.


 * Propose the application of an e-Learning Governance Reference Model – eLGORM [1], which is independent of technical platforms, organizational structures and pedagogical frameworks to help in guiding and optimizing e-learning initiatives. Critical Success Factors for getting these processes under control are established. These authors acknowledge that Marshall & Mitchell have noted the need for technical, pedagogical and organizational aspects to be considered.

Baruque, L. and R. Melo (2004). e-Learning Governance: How to Control and Secure e-Learning Systems. Second PGL Database Research Conference.


 * Propose a reference model for e-learning governance which encompasses e-learning information architecture, processes and sub-processes and governance rules and metrics. These authors agree with the eMM statement that “a flexible process model is needed to encourage the development of effective educational technology resources independent of technical platforms, organizational structures and pedagogical frameworks”. And feel that an eMM should be adapted from the academic to the corporate sector.

Bright, S. (2007). E-teachers at work: Exploring a process for reviewing e-teaching for ongoing professional learning. ASCILITE 2007. Singapore.


 * See next entry.

Bright, S. (2008). E-teachers collaborating: Process based professional development for e-teaching. ASCILITE 2008. Melbourne.


 * Presents results of a study where lecturers collect evidence of their online presence and reflect upon online teaching practice. Primary indicators of teacher presence online are developed and these are seen to cohere with the practices in the eMM.

Brito, S., T. Santos, A. Silva, K. Costa, E. Favero. (2005). "Apoio Automatizado à mediação da aprendizagem baseada em experimentos." Novas Tecnologias na Educação 3(2). Bubas, G., I. Balaban, N. Begicevic. (2007). "Course Evaluation in e-Learning by a Comparative Analysis of Two or More e-Learning Courses."


 * Had students perform a comparative evaluation of two e-courses with the idea being that this would help instructional designers improve their design and development methods. Refers to ‘Applying SPICE’ as one way in which e-courses can be evaluated.

Bullen, P. (2009). E-Learning Benchmarking & Pathfinder Programme 2005-08: An Overview, JISC and the Higher Education Academy.


 * Report on the Pathfinder Programme 2005-2008. Details the 5 models used for evaluations which includes the eMM.

Calverley, G., T. Cappelli, H. Dexter, J. Petch, A. Smithies. (2007). Changing Practices in the Development of Digital Resources. SOLSTICE 2007 Conference. Edge Hill University.


 * Discusses the use of eMM at Manchester University and the degree to which the framework is flexible enough to apply to institution-wide and also to small scale e-learning projects.

Calverley, G. and H. Dexter (2007). Change Management of Organisational Practices to Promote Successful e-Learning. 2nd International Conference on e-learning, Academic Conferences Limited.


 * Describe how successful organizational change requires an understanding of the organization’s processes, and that the introduction of e-learning we need to understand the components of change and ‘cultural reactions’. These authors describe process maturity assessment referring to Marshall & Mitchell.

Cappelli, T. and A. Smithies (2008). Learning Needs Analysis through Synthesis of Maturity Models and Competency Frameworks. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 Chesapeake, VA.


 * This paper, based on a case study within the University of Manchester, illustrates how an existing Maturity Model can be extended beyond benchmarking and quality assurance to provide the basis for a competency framework and a Learning Needs Analysis tool to support elearning staff development activities within a Higher Education Institute. eMM is the basic framework used at Manchester and this paper describes eMM’s proven usefulness.

Casey, J. and P. Wilson (2005). A practical guide to providing flexible learning in further and higher education, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.


 * Reference the eMM as a ‘key reference’ when constructing a practical guide to enhancing flexible higher education in Scotland.

Chen, C., Y. Chen, P. Yu. (2006). "Establishing an E-Business CMM with the Concepts of Capability, Maturity and Institutionalization." International Journal of Electronic Business Management 4(3): 205-213.


 * Proposes a capability maturity model for e-business, and draws on examples from the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries. These authors refer to the eMM when noting that capability maturity models can be used in different disciplines.

Chiang, T., R. Chang, J. Kouh, K. Hsu. (2008). "An Information Security Education Maturity Model."


 * Proposes a maturity model called ISEMM (Information Security Education Maturity Model) for information security education which is inspired by CMM and information security management system (ISMS). Cites Marshall in the references, but not obvious that there is an in-text citation.

Choat, D. (2006). Strategic Review of the Tertiary Education Workforce: Changing Work Roles and Career Pathways, Martin Jenkins & Associates.


 * Describes ICT in NZ tertiary institutions (amid a report on the changing roles and career pathways of staff) and reports on the eMM assessments of NZ tertiary sector.

Collecutt, R., R. Douglas, D. Mardle, K. Fielden. (2006). "A Review of Five Years of Instructional Technology in New Zealand." Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology 4(2).


 * Reviews NZ research on instructional technology and concludes it is a buoyant field. Articles about the eMM (e.g. ‘applying SPICE’) are collated with all other research to provide a snapshot of the field.

Conole, G. (2010). "Bridging the gap between policy and practice: a framework for technological intervention." Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 6(1): 13-27.


 * Maps the shifting perspectives of e-learning policy and its impact on practice. Argues the need for a framework to ensure that e-learning policy is effective in facilitating good practice and that research must shape policy and practice, and vice versa. Cites Marshall & Mitchell as evidence that e-learning is beginning to mature.

Czerniewicz, L. and C. Brown (2009). Intermediaries and Infrastructure as Agents: the Mediation of E-learning Policy and Use by Institutional Culture. Transforming Higher Education Through Technology-Enhanced Learning. T. Mayes, D. Morrison, H. Mellar, P. Bullen and M. Oliver. York, The Higher Education Academy.


 * Writing about ‘the relationship between institutional e-learning policy and use; the differences in how the relationships play out in different institutional types; the ways that organisational culture might mediate these relationships; and the key agents of that mediation’. Only reference to eMM is: ‘The imperative for resource allocation exemplified in centralised structures (Marshall and Mitchell, 2005) and institutional systems (Marshall and Mitchell, 2005; Nichols, 2008) is confirmed in the literature’.

'''Demirkan, H., M. Goul, M. Gros. '''(2010). "A Reference Model for Sustainable E-Learning Service Systems:Experiences with the Joint University/Teradata Consortium." Decision Sciences 8(1): 151-189.


 * Discuss a reference model for e-learning drawn from the eMM and other benchmarking projects and literature. They conclude that sharing best practice is vitally important.

Dexter, H. and J. Petch (2006). Managing Student Support: A Holistic Approach. Networked Learning.


 * Discusses how to manage student support in an e-learning environment. Refers to the eMM assessment methodology guide and literature review when indicating that harvesting information about processes and practices in an institution is a resource hungry exercise.

Dingjan, K. (2006). Differences in e-learning approach for three worker roles in a manufacturing environment. 4th Twente Student Conference on IT. University of Twente.


 * An aid to managers in deciding their IT strategy, evaluates the role e-learning can play in furthering education for craftsmen, young professionals and managers. Focuses on learning, but notes that Marshall (eMM) lists four other process categories to consider.

Dounos, P. and G. Bohoris (2007). Exploring the interconnection of known TQM process improvement initiatives in Higher education with key CMMI concepts. 10th QMOD Conference. Quality Management and Organiqatinal Development. Helsingborg.


 * Identifies the commonality between software and teaching and learning improvement as described by Marshall & Mitchell (2004) and others. The authors suggest that TQM quality principles be merged with CMMI tools to ensure effective quality enhancement in education.

Elgort, I. (2005). E-learning adoption: Bridging the chasm. ascilite 2005.


 * Discusses research on e-learning adoption, explaining why it doesn’t seem to have reached its full potential. Refers to Marshall’s (2005) eMM assessment of NZ tertiary institutions.

Ellis, R. and R. Calvo (2007). "Minimum Indicators to Assure Quality of LMS-supported Blended Learning." Educational Technology & Society 10(2): 60-70.


 * Surveys 7 universities and then describes indicators for minimum standards for quality assurance in blended learning courses. In combination with some of the benchmarking literature (Bacsish, 2005a; Marshall, 2005), these authors believe an integration of strategic planning and funding questions would enhance process.

'''Fernando, S., A. Dahanayake, H. Sol. '''(2005). A Holistic Maturity Model for IT Aligned University Education: IA-LMM. IASTED International Conference: Education and Technology, Calgary.


 * Notes how part of their ‘holistic maturity model for IT aligned education’ is similar to some of the structure of the eMM.

Franklin, T., H. Dexter, B. Barn, M. Beeston, J. Gallagher, R. Ukor. A High Level Domain Architecture for Higher Education, Franklin Consulting with The University of Manchester.


 * Describes how to construct a domain map of higher education and suggests that the e-learning maturity model be incorporated into the domain map in order to provide additional ways of understanding the higher education domain and to make the e-learning maturity model more widely available.

'''Griffith, S., S. Day, J. Scott, R. Smallwood. '''(1997). Progress Made on a Plan to Integrate Planning, Budgeting, Assessment and Quality Principles to Achieve Institutional Improvement, The Association for Institutional Research for Management Research, Policy Analysis, and Planning.


 * Describe the process of integrating planning, budgeting, assessment and quality processes at a large tertiary institution. They note that the Capability Maturity Model is essential to the implementation and integration of planning, budgeting, assessment and quality at an organisation.

Kahiigi, E., L. Ekenberg, H. Hansson, F. Tusubira, M. Danielson. (2008). "Exploring the e-Learning State of Art." The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 6(2): 77-88.


 * Reviews the state of the e-learning field and identifies two problem areas surrounding uptake and delivery. Cite Marshall & Mitchell as evidence that even in university contexts some institutions are struggling to attain minimal value from e-learning. Also as an argument for improving organisational support in e-learning.

'''Khalid, U., A. Basharat, A. Shahid, S. Hassan. '''(2009). An Adaptive E-learning Framework to supporting new ways of Teaching and Learning. Information and Communication Technologies, 2009. Karachi.


 * Suggests an integrated platform for adaptive e-learning with the following five features: (1) Domain Specific Learning Services (2) Student Capability Analysis (3) Adaptive Lecture Authoring Tool and Notification Manager (4) Intelligent Assessment Engine (5) User Friendly E-Learning Portal. Marshall & Mitchell cited in references, but apparently not in-text.

Khoo, E. (2010). Developing an Online Learning Community: A Strategy for Improving Lecturer and Student Learning Experiences, University of Waikato. PHD.


 * A qualitative interpretive methodology is adopted to case study an online lecturer and his 14 students’ experiences in a semester long fully online asynchronous course. Cites the 2005 eMM assessment of NZ tertiary institutions.

Kipta, A. and Berge, Z.L.(2006). Process transformations that sustain distance training: A blend of the best of common maturity models into a framework. Distance Learning Journal, 3(2), 13-21.


 * Describes a number of maturity models including that of Neuhauser, THINQ, CMM and SPICE as well as the eMM and proposes synthesizing them into a framework for improving distance learning. While a framework is described it is not actually formalised.

Kirkpatrick, D. (2003). Supporting E-learning in Open and Distance Education. 17th Annual AAOU conference, Bangkok.


 * Cites Marshall & Mitchell 2002 as emphasizing a need for institutional vision and integrated processes in order to deliver successful e-learning in open and distance education.

Kohlegger, M., R. Maier, S. Thalmann. (2009). Understanding Maturity Models Results of a Structured Content Analysis. I-KNOW ’09 and I-SEMANTICS ’09, Graz, Austria.


 * Examines the assumptions behind maturity models, and studies 16 representative maturity models transforming the results into a set of questions that can be used to (re)create maturity models. eMM is one of the models analyzed.

Lima, P., S. Brito, O. Favero. (2005). Personalização de Interfaces para Ambientes Virtuais de Aprendizagem baseados na Construção Dinâmica de Comunidades. CLIHC'05. Cuernavaca, Mexico. Liu, L. (2006). The Architecture and Implementation of Web Pagán e Embedded Annotation Service. Information Management, Yuan Ze University. Masters.


 * Contents page, figure lists, and references for a Masters Thesis. Apparently about meta-data. References the eMM.

'''Lutteroth, C., A. Luxton-Reilly, G. Dobbie, J. Hamer. '''(2007). A Maturity Model for Computing Education. Ninth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2007). Ballarat, Australia.


 * Propose a maturity model for computing education which is inspired by the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) used in software engineering. Under ‘related work’ they note that the idea of using CMM for education is not new, and outline the eMM model, but argue that their domain of interest is different and not all the eMM transfers.

Mansvelt, J., G. Suddaby, D. O’Hara. (2008). Learning how to e-teach? Staff perspectives on formal and informal professional development activity. ASCILITE 2008. Melbourne.


 * Reports on professional development for e-learning and concludes that staff are not taking up professional development opportunities on offer. Refers to Marshall’s (2005) survey of e-learning maturity across New Zealand tertiary institutions demonstrating that teaching staff capability ‘was easily the worst for the sector of any process assessed’

Mansvelt, J., G. Suddaby, D. O’Hara, A. Gilbert. (2009). "Professional Development: assuring quality in E-learning policy and practice." Quality Assurance in Education 17(3): 233-249.


 * Writing about staff professional development in e-learning and how to ensure quality, these authors detail the relevant practices in the eMM and explain that Marshall (2005) found that teaching staff capability was easily the worst for the sector or any process assessed.

Masoumi, D. (2010). Quality in E-learning in a Cultural Context: The case of Iran. Education, Communication and Learning University of Gothenburg. PhD.


 * PHD thesis examining quality in e-learning. A comprehensive e-quality framework is developed and then the case of e-learning in Iran is used to examine how the tool can be modified to fit various cultural contexts. The eMM is explained and suggested as a good starting point for institutional assessment. Extensive reference is also made to the eMM Version two process assessment workbook.

McNaught, C., Lam, P., & Kwok, M. (2012). Using eLearning benchmarking as a strategy to foster institutional eLearning strategic planning. Working Paper 11. Hong Kong: Centre for Learning Enhancement And Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.


 * Working paper describing a benchmarking exercise at the Chinese University of Hong Kong using the ACODE benchmarks. Includes the eMM in list of available tools.

'''Mettler, T., P. Rohner, R. Winter. '''(2010). Towards a Classification of Maturity Models in Information Systems. Management of the Interconnected World. A. D'Atri, M. Marco, A. Braccini and F. Cabiddu, Springer-Verlag.


 * Presents a classification system for maturity models in information systems. 117 maturity models are analysed in detail.

Moore, P. (2005). Information Literacy in the New Zealand Education Sector. Asia and Pacific Seminar Workshop on Educational Technology. Tokyo.


 * Writing on information literacy in the NZ education sector. Refers to Marshall’s sector report on the capability of institutions to offer information literacy and agrees that libraries are making some attempt but that there is an assumption that students will just know what they need to do.

Morrison, D., T. Mayes, E. Gulc. (2006). Benchmarking e-Learning in UK higher education. 23rd annual ascilite conference, Sydney.


 * Describes the background to the UK’s e-learning benchmarking plan and the results of some preliminary studies. Notes that the University of Manchester is using the eMM.

Neris, V., S. Zem-Mascarenhas, A. Neto, J. Anacleto, D. Duarte, R. De Araujo. (2006). "Environmental Comfort in the Personal Space of Elderly – A Learning Action based on Gagné and Ausubel’s Theory."


 * Discusses effective development processes for e-learning materials. Refers to Marshall & Mitchell (2004) noting that there is often a lack of good institutional planning. Often development relies on individual heroics.

NHS (2005). E-learning for Health: A Discussion Paper, NHSU.


 * A discussion document concerning strategies for e-learning in health care. Suggest that some sort of maturity or readiness model will be necessary given the embryonic state of e-learning in the NHS. Refer to the eMM as an example of this sort of model.

Nichols, M. (2008). E-learning in Context. E-Primer Series, Laidlaw College.


 * In a primer on e-learning sets out definitions and technologies and explains the NZ context of e-learning. Refers to Marshall (2005) when noting that much remains to be done to take advantage of isolated good practice and begin a process of intentional change.

Nyvang, T. and A. Bygholm (2010). Finding the appropriate network for learning. 7th International Conference on Networked Learning.


 * Examines a case study where one learning platform is swapped for another, arguing that the reasons for changing will not necessarily be solved by the upgrade, given that many of them stem not from the platform but from how it is implemented in the institution. The eMM is referenced as a way of understanding maturity without the ‘steps on a ladder’ mentality.

Parker, N. (2008). The Quality Dilemma in Online Education Revisited. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. T. Anderson and F. Elloumi.


 * Book chapter focusing on the problem of quality in online education. Sets out the ‘buyer beware’ problem and the difficulty of convincing traditional academics that online learning can work well. Explains the eMM in context against other possibilities for measuring quality in online education.

Parkes (2004). Background paper supporting a proposal to implement e-learning in a large health care organisation, Royal Adelaide Hospital.


 * Provides the underlying research and reasoning supporting the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) Staff Development Department’s Business Plan for the implementation of e-learning as part of a blended learning approach. Refers to the eMM when stating that “Given the relative immaturity or lack of readiness of many organisations in e-learning provision, some kind of ‘maturity’ or ‘readiness’ model could prove useful”.

'''Pasian, B. and G. Woodill, Eds. '''(2006). Plan to Learn: case studies in elearning project management, Canadian eLearning Enterprise Alliance.


 * In a review of the e-learning project management literature, note that there is not an agreed upon e-learning project management standard set but that several authors, including Marshall & Mitchell recommend using the CMM model.

Pawlowski, J. (2007). "Quality mark e-learning: developing process- and product-oriented quality for learning, education and training." International Journal of Learning Technology 3(1): 51-71.


 * Derives the requirements for a holistic quality mark for E-learning institutions.

Petch, J., G. Calverley, H. Dexter, T. Capelli. (2007). "Piloting a Process Maturity Model as an e-Learning Benchmarking Method." The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 5(1).


 * Discusses the pilot eMM use at Manchester.

Petch, J. and H. Dexter (2007). "Towards a Model Driven Approach to Process Improvement in HEIs." Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change.


 * Details how an organisation can change to embrace e-learning. Draws on studies of suitability (based at the University of Manchester) of the eMM to guide this change.

Petrova, K. and R. Sinclair (2005). "Business Undergraduates Learning Online: A One Semester Snapshot." International Journal of Education and Development using ICT 1(4).


 * Study the student perspectives of an undergraduate business program and conclude that their findings confirm the results of the eMM studies in NZ (for the student perspective at least). They note that further evaluation of the online program could include other elements of the eMM framework.

'''Quinton, S., M. Pachman, R. He. '''(2010). Evaluation of the TELT platform, University of New South Wales.


 * A collection of reports explaining the administrative, technological, and methodological factors to be observed in the development and implementation of a new evaluative framework for technology-enhanced teaching and learning at UNSW. Makes extensive reference to the eMM.

Rikure, T. (2007). Quality Evaluation Methodologies for e-Learning Systems. IST4BALT Workshop, Riga, Latvia.


 * Discusses the European UNITE portal project for creating an e-learning platform to enable secondary schools to reuse learning materials. eMM is cited as an example of a benchmarking tool.

Russell, C. (2008). E-learning adoption in a campus university as a complex adaptive system: mapping lecturer strategies, University of Leicester. PHD: 250.


 * Thesis which develops a conceptual framework for researching university learning and teaching as a complex adaptive system that includes learning technologies, people, and their organization within a university. Refers to Marshall (2005) when discussing patterns of e-learning adoption.

Russell, C. (2009). "A systemic framework for managing e-learning adoption in campus universities: individual strategies in context." ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology 17(1): 3-19.


 * Uses a case study to attempt to explain why institutional changes toward fruitful e-learning have been slow in coming. Concludes that a lack of coordination across traditionally disparate activities is largely to blame. Cites Marshall (2005) as evidence that the benefits of e-learning have not been reaching mainstream campuses across NZ, Australia and the UK.

Saravani, S. and J. Clayton (2009). A conceptual model for the educational deployment of QR codes. ASCILITE 2009. Auckland.


 * Discussing mobile learning the paper describes a conceptual framework used by the Waikato Institute of Technology to integrate Quick Response Codes/Mobile Tags within their current policies, procedures and institutional ICT infrastructure. The authors note that e-learning benchmarking is important (citing eMM) and are aware that new policies will need to be assessed.

Smedley, J. (2010). Modelling the impact of learning through technology. IRIS2010.


 * Discusses the need for staff and student training in the use of technology to enhance learning. With a particular focus on how to deal with ‘gaps’ in knowledge. eMM is noted as one of several benchmarking tools. eMM is then used as the basis for a quantitative analysis of the impact of technology on learning at one institution.

Soliman, T. (2008). Online Teaching Staff Maturity Model (OTMM). 7th WSEAS International Conference on E-ACTIVITIES.


 * Proposes an Online Teaching Staff Maturity Model. The article begins by outlining the eMM and its usefulness.

Tawsopar, K. and K. Mekhabunchakij (2009). Applying eMM in a 3D Approach to e-Learning Quality Improvement. 2009 International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology.


 * Describe a ‘3-dimensional’ approach to e-learning improvement. First an eMM assessment is applied. This is followed by a phase of ‘development’ in response to the assessment, and then finally a ‘delivery’ phase focusing on human resource efforts.

UMass (2005). Academic Technology For Teaching and Learning Vision and Plan, University of Massachusetts.


 * Report on University of Massachusetts’s plan for the utilization of technology in teaching. Refers to maturity models (including the eMM) in an appendix.

Varlamis, I. and I. Apostolakis (2010). A Framework for the Quality Assurance of Blended E-Learning Communities. KES 2010.


 * Sets out a framework for quality assurance of blended e-learning courses. Briefly describes eMM, and claims that the eMM fails to evaluate several distinct learning parameters.

'''von Wangenheim, C., J. Hauck, C. Salviano, A. von Wangenheim. '''(2010). Systematic Literature Review of Software Process Capability/Maturity Models. International Conference on Software Process. Improvement And Capability dEtermination (SPICE), Pisa, Italy.


 * A systematic review of software process maturity models. The general finding is that the models tend to be specialized for specific domains, and based on the CMM and SPICE. eMM is one of the models used in the study.

'''White, S., H. Davis, D. Morris, P. Hancock. '''(2010). Making it rich and personal: meeting institutional challenges from next generation learning environments. The PLE conference 2010. Barcelona.


 * An account and analysis of e-learning learning environment change at an institution. The authors note that in 2007 they undertook a benchmarking process at the institution based on the eMM.

Whitelock, D. and Cross, S. (2011). Assessment benchmarking: accumulating and accelerating institutional know - how for best practice. International Journal of e-Assessment 1(1):1-10.


 * Description of the application of the eMM to Open University using the eMM model and practices to assess institutional e-assessment capability. Multiple assessments were undertaken by a variety of internal stakeholders.

Wilcox, P., J. Petch, H. Dexter. (2005). "Towards an Understanding of UKeU Business Processes Within an e-Learning Lifecycle Model." The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 3(1): 77-86.


 * Reports on the failure of the UKeU and what lessons can be learned from its business models. These authors note the HEFCE funded benchmarking exercise, which aims to support the HE community in understanding their use of technology. The eMM may offer support to the HEFCE exercise.

Zhou, Y. and J. Zhang (2008). A Quantitative Approach to eMM. Seventh International Conference on Web-based Learning.


 * Takes the original eMM and suggests a quantitative approach.