Handbook on Quality and Standardisation in E-Learning
1st Edition
Published on 11. October 2006
XX, 574 pages
978-3-540-32788-2 (ISBN)
Description
Quality and standardisation in e-learning have become crucial success factors for organisations in learning, education and training: E-Learning has changed from an 'early adopter' stage to an integrated part of learning scenarios leading to major changes in educational organisations towards quality orientation.
For building a knowledge society, it is critically important to thoroughly understand quality and standards in e-learning. The handbook provides a cross-national perspective on these issues and draws a clear picture of the situation in quality development and standardisation. It covers topics of a rather foundational nature in quality and standardisation research as well as descriptions of quality approaches, instruments, standards, experiences and best practices. The Handbook is directed to learners, professionals, researchers and policy makers - people creating the next generation of learning.
More details
Other editions
Additional editions
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers | Jan Martin Pawlowski
Handbook on Quality and Standardisation in E-Learning
Book
07/2006
Springer
€213.99
Shipment within 10-15 days
Content
Quality in European e-learning: An introduction.- Quality in European e-learning: An introduction.- Quality in a Europe of diverse systems and shared goals.- Quality in a Europe of diverse systems and shared goals.- European quality development: Methods and approaches.- Quality of e-learning: Negotiating a strategy, implementing a policy.- The maze of accreditation in European higher education.- Adopting quality standards for education and e-learning.- Process-oriented quality management.- An analysis of international quality management approaches in e-learning: Different paths, similar pursuits.- The quality mark e-learning: Developing process- and product-oriented quality.- Competency-based quality securing of e-learning (CQ-E).- Quality of e-learning products.- Quality evaluation for e-learning in Europe.- Towards a model for structuring diversity: Classifying & finding quality approaches with the EQO model.- E-learning standards.- The standards jungle: Which standard for which purpose?.- Architectures and frameworks.- Content and management standards: LOM, SCORM and Content Packaging.- Educational interoperability standards: IMS learning design and DIN didactical object model.- Developing and handling learner profiles for European learner information systems.- Improving European employability with the e-portfolio.- Interface standards: Integration of learning and business information systems.- Facilitating learning objects reusability in different accessibility settings.- Out of the past and into the future: Standards for technology enhanced learning.- Fields of practice and case studies.- Organisational and cultural similarities and differences in implementing quality in e-learning in Europe's higher education.- Rethinking quality for building a learningsociety.- Myths and realities in learner oriented e-learning-quality.- The e-learning path model: A specific quality approach to satisfy the needs of customers in e-learning.- Pedagogic quality - supporting the next UK generation of e-learning.- Quality in cross national business models for technology based educational services.- E-learning quality and standards from a business perspective.- A framework for quality of learning resources.- LearnRank: Towards a real quality measure for learning.- Quality of e-learning in tertiary education: Managing a balance between divergence and convergence.- Best practices for e-learning.
16 Educational interoperability standards: IMS learning design and DIN didactical object model (S. 225-226)
Michael Klebl
University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany
In emerging educational markets, fostered by developments in learning technology and educational media, not only resources for learning are subject to exchange and trade. Educational services providers design, operate and evaluate complex learning scenarios as a service. Hence, technical interoperability as well as quality issues focus the teaching-learning-process itself. In order to meet this objective, Educational Interoperability Standards propose a framework for a comprehensive description of the teaching-learning-process. This article gives an overview on two alternative Educational Interoperability Standards: IMS Learning Design (IMSLD) and DIN Didactical Object Model (DIN-DOM). The introduction focuses on the paradigmatic shift from description of content to description of process.
How educational interoperability standards add quality is discussed in the second part of this article. The third part presents common core concepts of IMS-LD and DINDOM and gives a comparison of these standards. A description of examples and issues in practical use concludes this article.
16.1 Introduction on educational interoperability standards
16.1.1 From content to process
The notion of a single learner in self-study activities within a long distance learning scenario in interaction with digital learning content is often related closely to the term "e-learning" - it is related so closely that it might not be reflected any more. Nearly all recent approaches to learning with educational media and infor- mation systems have dismissed this notion: When we create blended learning scenarios, we emphasise the integration of web-based self-study and traditional classroom teaching. When we talk about Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), we examine how computer- und web-based tools can be used for learning in groups. On a theoretical level we discuss learner-centred approaches like situated learning and social-constructivist learning.
Roughly speaking, a paradigmatic shift away from a content-based knowledge delivery to a social and learner-centred paradigm can be stated for most parts of the current e-learning discussion. In academic discussion as well as in designing learning scenarios we take care of learner activities, interaction within a group of learners and different supporting roles of teaching staff like tutoring, coaching and informing.
For quite a long time the development of interoperability standards in elearning focussed on learning content. Especially metadata standards and content packaging principles (see part 15) are designed for the management of digital media for education. In these standards only few potential is given to describe how learning (and teaching) in a certain learning scenario may take place. While metadata offer some descriptive information on some educational aspects for a single digital learning resource, content packaging is used to arrange these resources in a certain order. Resources for learning can be various: we consider texts, figures, exercises, lectures, simulations, experiments or problem statements as resources for learning.
Michael Klebl
University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany
In emerging educational markets, fostered by developments in learning technology and educational media, not only resources for learning are subject to exchange and trade. Educational services providers design, operate and evaluate complex learning scenarios as a service. Hence, technical interoperability as well as quality issues focus the teaching-learning-process itself. In order to meet this objective, Educational Interoperability Standards propose a framework for a comprehensive description of the teaching-learning-process. This article gives an overview on two alternative Educational Interoperability Standards: IMS Learning Design (IMSLD) and DIN Didactical Object Model (DIN-DOM). The introduction focuses on the paradigmatic shift from description of content to description of process.
How educational interoperability standards add quality is discussed in the second part of this article. The third part presents common core concepts of IMS-LD and DINDOM and gives a comparison of these standards. A description of examples and issues in practical use concludes this article.
16.1 Introduction on educational interoperability standards
16.1.1 From content to process
The notion of a single learner in self-study activities within a long distance learning scenario in interaction with digital learning content is often related closely to the term "e-learning" - it is related so closely that it might not be reflected any more. Nearly all recent approaches to learning with educational media and infor- mation systems have dismissed this notion: When we create blended learning scenarios, we emphasise the integration of web-based self-study and traditional classroom teaching. When we talk about Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), we examine how computer- und web-based tools can be used for learning in groups. On a theoretical level we discuss learner-centred approaches like situated learning and social-constructivist learning.
Roughly speaking, a paradigmatic shift away from a content-based knowledge delivery to a social and learner-centred paradigm can be stated for most parts of the current e-learning discussion. In academic discussion as well as in designing learning scenarios we take care of learner activities, interaction within a group of learners and different supporting roles of teaching staff like tutoring, coaching and informing.
For quite a long time the development of interoperability standards in elearning focussed on learning content. Especially metadata standards and content packaging principles (see part 15) are designed for the management of digital media for education. In these standards only few potential is given to describe how learning (and teaching) in a certain learning scenario may take place. While metadata offer some descriptive information on some educational aspects for a single digital learning resource, content packaging is used to arrange these resources in a certain order. Resources for learning can be various: we consider texts, figures, exercises, lectures, simulations, experiments or problem statements as resources for learning.
Table of content (1) (JPG)
Table of content (2) (JPG)
Table of content (3) (JPG)
Table of content (4) (JPG)
Table of content (5) (JPG)
Table of content (6) (JPG)
Table of content (7) (JPG)
Table of content (8) (JPG)
Table of content (9) (JPG)
Table of content (10) (JPG)
Table of content (11) (JPG)
Table of content (12) (JPG)
Foreword (1) (JPG)
Foreword (2) (JPG)
Content (1) (JPG)
Content (2) (JPG)
Content (3) (JPG)
Content (4) (PDF)
