| About UTDC | Events | Feedback | Resources | Research | PHELT Cert | Tutors | Blackboard |
E-Learning Maturity Model
Version Two Processes
Building on the SPICE model, the eMM divides the capability of institutions to sustain and deliver e-learning up into five major categories or process areas (Table 1). The key difference from the original SPICE model is the introduction of the Learning area, which replaces the Customer/Supplier area used in software engineering.
Within each of these areas are a number of processes, derived from the research literature on e-learning quality, experience from eMM assessments, and consultation with the sector through workshops. Processes define an aspect of the overall ability of institutions to perform well in the given process area, and thus in e-learning overall. The advantage of this approach is that it breaks down a complex area of institutional work into related sections that can be assessed independently and presented in a comparatively simple overview without losing the underlying detail.
Table 1: eMM process categories (revised from Marshall and Mitchell, 2003)
An obvious requirement of this model is that the processes chosen are based on empirical evidence and represent Ôcommon truthsÕ about e-learning capability:
"are there common practices or ways of creating e-learning resources and learning environments that are accepted, useful and able to be described in a way that others can adopt them and improve their own e-learning capability?"
The processes used in version one of the eMM were developed from the 'Seven Principles' of Chickering and Gamson (1987) and 'Quality on the Line' benchmarks (IHEP 2000) as outlined in Marshall and Mitchell (2004). These have the advantage of being widely accepted as guidelines or benchmarks for e-learning delivery (Sherry, 2003), however extensive feedback through the workshops and from collaborators in New Zealand, Australia and the UK as well as the experience of applying the first version of the eMM identified a number of additional aspects of capability that needed assessment (Marshall, 2006). The processes that now constitute version two of the eMM are listed below in Table 2.
| L1. | Learning objectives are apparent in the design and implementation of courses |
| L2. | Students are provided with mechanisms for interaction with teaching staff and other students |
| L3. | Student skill development for e-learning is provided |
| L4. | Information provided on the type and timeliness of staff responses to communications students can expect |
| L5. | Students receive feedback on their performance within courses |
| L6. | Research and information literacy skills development by students is explicitly supported |
| L7. | Learning designs and activities result in active engagement by students |
| L8. | Assessment of students is designed to progressively build their competence |
| L9. | Student work is subject to specified timetables and deadlines |
| L10. | Courses are designed to support diverse learning styles and learner capabilities |
| D1. | Teaching staff are provided with design and development support when engaging in e-learning |
| D2. | Course development, design and delivery are are guided and informed by formally developed e-learning procedures and standards |
| D3. | Explict linkages are made in the design rationale regarding the pedagogies, content and technologies chosen |
| D4. | Courses are designed to support disabled students |
| D5. | All elements of the physical e-learning infrastructure are reliable, robust and sufficient |
| D6. | All elements of the physical e-learning infrastructure are integrated using defined standards |
| D7. | Resources created are designed and managed to maximise reuse |
| S1. | Students are provided with technical assistance when engaging in e-learning |
| S2. | Students have access to a range of library resources and services when engaging in e-learning |
| S3. | Student enquiries, questions and complaints are collected formally and managed |
| S4. | Students have access to support services for personal and learning issues when engaging in e-learning |
| S5. | Teaching staff are provided with pedagogical support and professional development in using e-learning |
| S6. | Teaching staff are provided with technical support in the handling of electronic materials created by students |
| E1. | Students are able to provide regular formal and informal feedback on the quality and effectiveness of their e-learning experience |
| E2. | Teaching staff are able to provide regular formal and informal feedback on quality and effectiveness of their e-learning experience |
| E3. | Regular formal independent reviews of e-learning aspects of courses are conducted |
| O1. | Formal criteria used to allocate resources for e-learning design, development and delivery |
| O2. | Institutional learning and teaching policy and strategy explicitly address e-learning |
| O3. | A documented specification and plan guides technology decisions when designing and developing courses |
| O4. | A documented specification and plan ensures the reliability, integrity and validity of information collection, storage and retrieval |
| O5. | The rationale for e-learning is placed within an explicit plan |
| O6. | E-learning procedures and which technologies are used are communicated to students prior to starting courses |
| O7. | Pedagogical rationale for e-learning approaches and technologies communicated to students prior to starting courses |
| O8. | Course administration information communicated to students prior to starting courses |
| O9. | The provision of e-learning is guided by formal business management and strategy |
Table 2: eMM Version Two Processes
|
^ Page Top |
|
||||||||
 |
Glossary
| A-Z of Sites | Disclaimer
Updated:Tuesday, 25-Jul-2006 14:59:59 NZST © 2008 Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand |