Suggestion in line with the Google Discussion
Just had a thought - regarding the starring of degrees of completion, of a given educational document...
In much the same way there are degrees of accomplishment in the WikiEd certification process, could there not be something similar regarding the denotation of quality, or degrees of completeness? In the WikiEd / L4C world, users are clamoring for their certification - amazing isn't it? Could we not do something in this way, so that folks have a similar source of pride in completing, and a sense of being a member of our community?
Just a thought...
- Randy
Hi Randy,
Yes I do think that there are distinctive phases or degrees of completion. I suspect that these will correspond with the generic phases of the learning design process, for example:
- Design plan or blueprint for development completed, which could include, for example:
- a Brief analysis of the intended target audience
- Teaching objectives specified
- Planned structure of the resource completed
- ContentInfobox inserted on the main page
- Request or invitation for feedback on the resource posted
- Resource completed and ready for QA review
- All content completed in accordance with the design plan above (Content Design)
- Navigation templates inserted (Visual Design)
- Images, figures and graphs uploaded (Visual Design)
- Editorial comments and suggestions from the community incorporated into the resource
- QA review completed
- Content validity / reliability reviewed
- Educational Design (i.e. Visual elements, pedagogy etc reviewed)
This is just a tentative example / suggestion to show how we could link generic phases with concrete outputs.
I agree --- the pride in completing a resource (or requesting certification for wiki skills attained) is a powerful motivator and also a vehicle for individuals to be recognized in the community.
Appreciate the inputs ... thanks!
Randy,
I completely agree with the degrees of completion. This is why the suggestion of using a maturity model. It provides a comprehensive set of criteria (or practices) and depending how well they are met shows maturity. What I find most appealing in a maturity model is how it is more subscriptive than prescriptive. It isn't how you do something, it is more that you are doing something. An example taken from eMM L1. Learning objectives guide the design and implementation of courses. and depending how available the objectives are would determine the level of maturity... So in the end we can review a lesson, module or whole course and give it a maturity level depending on how well it implements the practices. Again it doesn't say how to implement, it just says that you should if you want to achieve a certain level of maturity. Therefore any lesson, module or course (regardless of where they are within their development) already has a level of maturity...
I believe the eMM2 is a good starting point, though I also believe it would need a complete review cause there are differences between wiki based OER and eLearning emerging from a "traditional" institution.
All good...
Peter
Hi Peter & Randy
Yeah -- we said in our guiding principles that quality is an illusive and complex topic <smile>.
What I like about maturity models is:
- the underpinning logic that an organization or community's quality achievements are closely linked with the capability of the orginisation/community to implement quality processes;
- the notion maturation, so for example WE can compare how our community is maturing in comparison to previous years or in comparison with other OER communities.
- maturity models can be used to visualize capability in core processes (that enable organisations/institutions to scale up operations so that quality is promoted across the project rather than pockets of innovation). This visualization will help the community determine where we need to expend effort on becoming "more mature"
Specifically, I think eMM is an excellent starting point. Apart from its solid foundations -- the model and its documentation are available under a CC-BY-SA license which means we can adapt, refine and reuse the model without restriction.
Two thoughts:
- In many respects, WE is an organization (albeit a social self-organizing system.) -- So while WE is not an organization in the physical sense -- I do think WE can assess its own capability and maturity as an entity or community. Of course eMM would need to be refined and adapted to take into account the unique features of a social network and self organizing system.
- We need to think carefully about the distinction between a capability maturity model and the actual processes of QA review. Our processes and procedures we adopt for QA and review will mature over time. The maturity model is the vehicle for us to asses the maturation of our processes overtime -- in other words the maturity model doesn't express a value judgment on the quality of the materials.
