Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Learning Reflection 3

The E Learning Maturity Model has been the focus of my most recent reading for this course.  This model looks at a structured and systematic approach to analyzing the ability of an institution to sustain technology development within a school.  The idea of structure and systems is one that I find appealing, as it provides a foundation from where an organisation can look at and prepare for scenario planning.  This is particularly relevant to me, as I have been involved in new technology implementations in the past for which there has been, at best, limited sustainability after a key person in the process has left the school, or moved on to other things.  One such example of this has been class blogging through Twitter in my previous school.  After I left and was no longer driving the programme, the number and regularity of posts reduced dramatically.  This tells me that I should have put in place process to ensure that the programme had long term viability and sustainability.

In regards to the E Learning Maturity Model, I believe that there is almost too much to focus on in the analysis.  I have recently read the book Insanely Simple, which is based on the success of the Apple Company after the 'second coming' of Steve Jobs in 1997.  The book highlights many examples of the success of Apple being the direct result of Job's aversion to an over focus on detail, preferring to focus on a few simple things, both in the overall structure of the company, and in the finer details of particular products.  In the case of the overall structure of the company (Segal, 2012), Jobs removed many items from the product line; in the case of a specific products, Jobs wanted the operation of an iPod Touch to have just the one button.

From my own perspective, in the school that I am working in, I would like to focus on a few questions in any strategic analysis.  I believe that too many areas of focus, such as in the E Learning Maturity Model, will lead to the analysis being done in a way in which, ironically, the finer detail could be missed, as areas are paid scant attention to.  Conversely, when the focus is on fewer areas, there is more likely to be more attention paid to each of these areas; analysis by depth, as opposed to breadth.

Having stated the above, a way that I would work around it would be to look at only one of the seven areas of the E Learning Maturity Model at a time, as was the case in my previous post when the Learning process category was used to analyse a tertiary course that I participated in some time ago.  In the case of the research / case study that I am doing for EDEM630, this could be around the Support process, looking at the level of support that I, as manager, provides to the organisation in regards to using Twitter as a means of engaging with students with their learning, and families to involve them in the learning of children.


Segal, K. (2012) Insanely Simple, The Obsession that Drives Apple. New York: Penguin Group.

Monday, September 16, 2013

eMM Intuative Assessment

I am conducting an intuitive assessment of the processes L1, L2 and L3 based on my knowledge of, and participation in, a course restricted to the delivery dimension. I have selected an undergraduate course for which I was an extramural student as part of a Certificate in Fitness Studies programme.

I will be using the eMM capability assessment scale of: 

  • Not Adequate (NA); 
  • Partially Adequate (PA); 
  • Largely Adequate (LA); or 
  • Fully Adequate (FA)

L1. Learning objectives are apparent in the design and implementation of courses.

LA: Formally stated learning objectives normally provided in course documentation available prior to enrolment but are missing in some cases or inconsistently provided in the range of course documents.

LA: Most, but not all, assessments and learning activities contain explicit linkages to course learning objectives or restate learning objectives using different wording.

LA: Learning objectives are linked to wider programme or institutional objectives in most but not all courses, or only stated subsequent to course design and development.

PA: Learning objectives dominated by recall with few addressing other outcomes.

LA: Learning objectives and course workload expectations are linked during the design and development of most, but not all courses.

L2. Students are provided with mechanisms for interaction with teaching staff and other students. 

PA: Interaction between staff and students provided only through a limited or informal mechanism or only through face to face contact.

FA: Course documentation contains clear and consistently presented lists of teaching staff email addresses repeated in suitable places.

LA: Technical support is provided to students to assist them in making effective use of the available communication channels, but support is not actively promoted or provided to all students.

L3. Student skill development for e-learning is provided.

FA: The relationships between all key course components and activities are conveyed to students formally and consistently.

LA: Formal opportunities for students to practice with e-learning technologies and pedagogies provided after commencement of courses, or only cover some technologies and pedagogies or some courses.

PA: E-learning skills support and training is provided informally and depends on the teaching staff skills and availability.

NA: No provision for feedback beyond the marks assigned for assessed work.

Value Judgement of my Reliability:
This analysis is based on my subjective memory of a course that I completed several years ago (2002). As this is to be an intuitive activity only, I have not gone back to check details on the above-mentioned criteria. It is based purely on the recollections and memories of my participation as an extramural student. I do not recall having completed an evaluation of the course, and have not had access to any formal course evaluation done by other participants.  I do have some confidence in the validity of many of the assessments, as the course is one that I enjoyed, with the enjoyment and engagement enhancing my memories of many aspects of the programme.

The above assessment is based only on my own memories, recollections and perceptions. There is no evidential basis and it has been compiled as part of formal coursework.  It is not to be used as valid assessment of any real course.