L1 4 8

=Feedback collected regularly from staff regarding the effectiveness of e-learning activities. =

Evidence
Student perspectives are not the only ones necessary to assess. Usoro and Abid (2008) emphasize the importance of including academics and stakeholders views to ‘achieve a comprehensive measure of quality’ (p. 77-78).

The e-learning environment presents many new and/or different teaching and learning challenges that can benefit from valid, reliable, and informative feedback from teachers. Laurillard (2002) recommends the establishment of a forum for teachers to “discuss their experience of learning technologies, and the academic issues surrounding the balance of learning methods” (p. 227).

Resources
According to Jamieson (2004) e-learning represents ‘the emergence of a significant online pedagogy [which] raises host of issues…concerning the complex and idiosyncratic nature of online learning’ (p. 22). A key issue is the erosion of ‘traditional teacher-centred pedagogy…as online environments provide learners with greater flexibility over when, where, how, and with whom they learn’ (p. 22). Jamieson discusses a flexible learning programme for academics, which includes a weekly discussion group and regular anonymous evaluation responses that demonstrate the variety and value of communities of learning practice.

Communities of practice are discussed by Gray (2004) who emphasises the benefits that the online environment offers for collegial information sharing. However she recommends that an accomplished moderator be employed to facilitate formal and informal discussion across e-learning’s technical, social, organisational, and pedagogical functions (p. 33).

With respect to learning objectives, we must note that they can evolve. Florida State University gives examples of the evolution of specific objectives during a process of staff consultation. ‘The next few slides show the evolutionary development of an objective using input from a group that worked on developing a set of learning objectives for physiology. Basically the strategy was as follows. (1) An individual faculty member writes the first draft of the objective. (2) He/She explains the intent of the objective to a group. (3) The group responds with suggestions. (4) The objective is rewritten.’

http://med.fsu.edu/education/FacultyDevelopment/PDF/writingobjectives.pdf