SWTng 8: Quality for new learning cultures

The next article is by Ulf Daniel Ehlers of the Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany. It is titled "Web 2.0--e-learning 2.0--quality 2.0? Quality for new learning cultures," published in 2009 in Quality Assurance in Education. It has 33 references and the author supplies the keywords e-learning, quality management, quality, learning processes, and learning. Following is the abstract:

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the changes taking place when learning moves from a transmissive learning model to a collaborative and reflective learning model and proposes consequences for quality development.

Design/methodology/approach - The paper summarises relevant research in the field of e-learning to outline the differences between e-learning 1.0 and e-learning 2.0 and amalgamates it with a series of previously published works. The characteristics of quality development are analyses in a next step and suitable methodologies for developing quality for e-learning 2.0 environments are selected, proposed and explained.

Findings - Even though the question of quality is controversially discussed already when e-learning 1.0 appeared on the market, e-learning 2.0 creates even more insecurity. This paper aims at answering the following questions: what constitutes the new, innovative element, which is described by Web 2.0 and e-learning 2.0? Does this development have consequences for how it assures, manage and develop quality in e-learning? In three steps, it is described what e-learning 2.0 constitutes, which basic elements of Web 2.0 it builds on, and what has changed. In a second, step the consequences this implies for quality development in e-learning are discussed. Third, a number of methods as examples and practical advice on how to further advance quality development are described.

Originality/value - The original value of the paper is to outline the changes which have to be taken into account in new and innovative learning environment which are build on Web 2.0 technologies and to draw consequences to quality development as well as suggest methodologies for educators and learners to improve quality of such learning environments.

 The focus of this article is e-learning and quality management. While I am no longer looking at quality management and instructional design, the article also deals with constructivist issues concerning e-learning 2.0. E-learning 2.0 is characterized by the authors with terms such as learner-centered, immersive learning, connected learning, game-based learning, workflow (informal) learning, and mobile learning. (p. 297). E-learning 2.0 is further characterized as a "personalized learning environment." However, this is not individually prescribed; the nature and scope of the learning goals are identified by the learner, not the instructor. While some of that may be feasible within the scope of my topic, the goal in my situation is to make the learner more capable of doing their job. Thus, only those tasks which apply to the job will be apropos to the curriculum. Nevertheless, the point is well taken that this is different than e-learning 1.0, which resembled an online textbook. This type of e-learning must be more flexible to the wants as well as the needs of the learner. They must be able to make it their own; hence, the characterization "personalized."

From e-learning 1.0 to e-learning 2.0 - Right at the outset what needs to be stated is that e-learning 2.0 is not a scientific term. It is not about further development, a new paradigm or a replacement in the sense of a new release. Strictly speaking it is not even about a new technology, a new model of learning or a new, separate, innovative variety of e-learning. E-learning 2.0 rather refers to a number of developments, trends and points of view, which require change from teaching to learning. The new point of view essentially connects e-learning with five characteristics:

1. Learning takes place always and everywhere (i.e., it is ubiquitous) and therefore in many different contexts, not only in the classroom.
2. Learners take on the role of organizers.
3. Learning is a lifelong process, has many episodes and is not (only) linked to educational institutions.
4. Learning takes place in communities of learning (so-called communities of practice, Wenger, 1998): learners participate in formal as well as informal communities.
5. Learning is informal and non-formal, takes place at home, at the work place and during leisure time and is no longer centered on teachers or institutions. (p. 297)

 In order to provide for quality in e-learning 2.0, the following transitions need to be made from 1.0:

• From reception to participation
• From inspection to reflection
• From product orientation through process orientation to performance and competence orientation
• From planning education for the learner to planning education by the learner
• From receiver to developer of learning materials
• From the "learning island" LMS to the internet as a learning environment
• From tests to performance

Next, the authors discuss concepts and methods of quality development for e-learning 2.0. Important aspects of methods for quality assessment include the following:

• Self-evaluation
• Quality assessment with e-portfolios (web-based portfolios)
• Social recommendation and community participation
• Evaluation processes aimed at a target group

The point the authors are making is that the method of identifying quality must change because the nature of learning has changed in e-learning 2.0.

REFERENCE

Ehlers, U. F. (2009). Web 2.0 - e-learning 2.0 - quality 2.0? Quality for new learning cultures. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3) pp. 296-314. DOI: 10.1108/s09684880910970687