CHIRON

CHIRON was an EU-funded project (under the Leonardo programme) whose aim was "to develop reference material presenting and analysing research outcomes, experiments and best practice solutions for new forms of e-learning, based on integration of broadband web-, digital TV- and mobile technologies for ubiquitous applications in the sector of non-formal and informal life-long learning".

There is still (2012) a CHIRON web site at http://semioweb.msh-paris.fr/chiron/. They tended to use the phrase "u-learning" rather than "e-learning", where "u" denotes "ubiquity",

As part of this brief, CHIRON appeared to develop a benchmarking methodology. This was specifically referred to in Work Package 7.

There are 11 criteria, divided into a total of 216 indicators. The criteria are as follows:

• 01 Goals and Objectives of the course (12 indicators)
• 02 Institutional Support (14 indicators)
• 03 Course Development (50 indicators)
• 04 Course Structure (12 indicators)
• 05 Course Content (25 indicators)
• 06 Teaching/Learning (19 indicators)
• 07 Student Support (18 indicators)
• 08 Faculty Support (4 indicators)
• 09 Evaluation and Assessment (24 indicators)
• 10 Accessibility (26 indicators)
• 11 Language (12 indicators)

Most of the indicators are best described as specific and rather detailed e-learning standards and guidelines (for example on house style, usability, etc). The ones more oriented to benchmarking are drawn from a range of sources, including mostly from the Quality on the Line criteria developed in the late 1990s by the Institute for Higher Education Policy in the US.

In the last years little has been heard of CHIRON even at European events.

By UK HE standards it might be thought to have far too many (indicators (double that of ELTI) and a strong orientation to quality tick-boxes.

However, given interest in moving benchmarking e-learning “down” from institution to department and perhaps even course level, with an increased focus on pedagogy, the CHIRON scheme might be of value to consider, even if the main conclusion is that such a change in benchmarking focus is rather harder than it might seem.

There is a report on CHIRON which goes into more detail.

In Phase 1 of the UK benchmarking programme there was no interest in reflecting on CHIRON - however, in Phase 2, with a possibly greater emphasis on the quality-benchmarking dialectic, things might have been different - but there was no interest either.

---

> Benchmarking
>> Main Page