Welcome to the Virtual Education Wiki ~ Open Education Wiki

Major E-Learning Initiative: Difference between revisions

From Virtual Education Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(entry)
 
(added cat and link to MELIs)
 
Line 26: Line 26:
<br>
<br>
> [[Abbreviations]]
> [[Abbreviations]]
<br>
> [[:Category:MELIs]]
<br><br>
<br><br>
>> [[Index]]
>> [[Main Page]]
 
[[Category:Definienda]]

Latest revision as of 15:28, 26 February 2009

A Major E-Learning Initiative (MELI) is defined as follows:

  1. It requires at least one per cent of the institutional budget.
  2. It affects or is planned to affect at least 10% of students.
  3. The person responsible (as the majority proportion of his/her job) for leading that initiative has a rank and salary at least equivalent to that of a university full professor at Head of Department level, or equivalent rank of administrative or technical staff (usually an Assistant Director) – and ideally that of Dean or full Director.
  4. There is a specific department to manage and deliver the initiative with a degree of autonomy from mainstream IT, library, pedagogic or quality structures.
  5. Progress of the initiative is overseen by a Steering Group chaired by one of the most senior managers in the institution.
  6. The initiative is part of the institution's business plan and is not totally dependent on any particular externally funded project.
  7. There are strategy, planning and operational documents defining the initiative (including its costs and benefits) and regularly updated.
  8. The head of the institution (Vice-Chancellor, Rector, President, etc) will from time to time in senior management meetings be notified of progress and problems with the initiative.
  9. The head of the institution is able to discuss the initiative in general terms with equivalent heads of other institutions – in the way that he/she would be able to discuss a new library, laboratory or similar large-scale development.

Note that these are purely organisational criteria to be used as a crude filter to remove small and most likely irrelevant indicatives from consideration – as otherwise there are just too many to analyse. They are not value judgements – the MELI may be well run or badly run, serve students or ignore them, be successful or be failing. Thus most of the criteria above are not likely to be Critical Success Factors – but some are likely to be (such as 6 and 7) We would also hope that a MELI would be engaged in:

  • Sharing of knowledge and know-how through meetings with experts, policy and decision makers and the organisation of discussion sessions at major e-learning conferences such as the EDEN and the Online Educa Berlin conferences

But we cannot require them to – and many of these initiatives will have never heard of EDEN. Interestingly some MELIs are very disconnected even from UK conference and policy circles.

See also:


> Glossary
> Abbreviations
> Category:MELIs

>> Main Page