University of Duisburg-Essen at 13:52, 22 June 2024

2024-06-22T13:52:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:52, 22 June 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Traditional assessments often rely on subjective self-assessment instruments, as identified by Volungevičienė et al. (2021). Data-driven assessments are rare.		Traditional assessments often rely on subjective self-assessment instruments, as identified by Volungevičienė et al. (2021)<sup>[[#Volungeviciene2021\|[1]]]</sup>. Data-driven assessments are rare.

	Out of 20 instruments reviewed, only 4 are suitable for European HEIs:		Out of 20 instruments reviewed, only 4 are suitable for European HEIs:
			* COL’s Benchmarking Toolkit for Technology-Enabled Learning<sup>[[#SankeyMishra2019\|[2]]]</sup>
	* COL’s Benchmarking Toolkit for Technology-Enabled Learning ~~(Sankey & Mishra, 2019)~~		* European Framework for Digitally Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg)<sup>[[#Kampylis2015a\|[3]]][[#Kampylis2015b\|[4]]]</sup>
	* European Framework for Digitally Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg) ~~(Kampylis et al., 2015)~~		* E-xcellence Manual: Quality Assessment for E-learning<sup>[[#Kear2016\|[5]]]</sup>
	* E-xcellence Manual: Quality Assessment for E-learning ~~(Kear et al., 2016)~~		* JISC Guide for Developing Organizational Approaches to Digital Capability<sup>[[#Killen2017\|[6]]]</sup>
	* JISC Guide for Developing Organizational Approaches to Digital Capability ~~(Clare Killen et al., 2017)~~


	Common benchmarking domains include:		Common benchmarking domains include:
Line 17:		Line 15:
	* Infrastructure		* Infrastructure

			Existing instruments tend to focus on benchmarking and quality assurance in various operational aspects of HEIs. Differences in educational systems may influence the applicability of these frameworks. Self-assessment tools for students provide insights into digital competence but are less relevant for broader institutional assessments. Quantitative approaches in other sectors, such as e-commerce and IT, suggest a more generalized but non-universal approach to assessing Digital Readiness. Trace data usage for assessment is notably absent.<sup>[[#Volungeviciene2021\|[1]]]</sup>

	~~Existing instruments tend to focus on benchmarking and quality assurance in various operational aspects of HEIs~~. ~~Differences in educational systems may influence the applicability of these frameworks~~. ~~Self-assessment tools for students provide insights into digital competence but are less relevant for broader institutional assessments~~. ~~Quantitative approaches in other sectors~~, ~~such as e-commerce and IT~~, ~~suggest a more generalized but non-universal approach to assessing Digital Readiness~~. ~~Trace data usage for assessment is notably absent.~~		== References ==
			<ol class="references">
			<li id="Volungeviciene2021">
	~~'''References'''~~		Volungevičienė, A., Brown, M., Greenspon, R., Gaebel, M., & Morrisroe, A. (2021). Developing a high performance digital education ecosystem: Institutional self-assessment instruments. [Publication Title: European University Association]. European University Association.
			</li>
	~~Clare Killen~~, ~~Helen Beetham~~, ~~& Sarah Knight~~. (~~2017~~). Developing ~~organisational approaches to~~ digital ~~capability~~ [~~Jisc~~]. ~~Retrieved September 24~~, ~~2022~~, ~~from https://www~~.~~jisc~~.ac.uk/~~full-guide/developing-organisational-approaches-to-digital-capability~~		<li id="SankeyMishra2019">
			Sankey, M., & Mishra, S. (2019). Benchmarking toolkit for technology-enabled learning.
	Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Devine, J. (2015a). A european framework for digitally-competent educational organisations. https://doi.~~%20org~~/10.2791/54070		</li>
			<li id="Kampylis2015a">
	Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Devine, J. (2015b). Promoting effective digital-age learning - a european framework for digitally-competent educational organisations.		Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Devine, J. (2015a). A european framework for digitally-competent educational organisations. [https://doi.org/10.2791/54070]
			</li>
	Kear, K., Rosewell, J., Williams, K., Ossiannilsson, E., Rodrigo, C., S´anchez-Elvira Paniagua, A., Santamar´ıa Lancho, M., Vyt, A., & Mellar, H. (2016). Quality assessment for e-learning: A benchmarking approach.		<li id="Kampylis2015b">
	https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC98209		Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Devine, J. (2015b). Promoting effective digital-age learning - a european framework for digitally-competent educational organisations.
			</li>
	~~Sankey~~, M., & ~~Mishra, S~~. (~~2019~~). ~~Benchmarking toolkit for technology-enabled learning~~.		<li id="Kear2016">
			Kear, K., Rosewell, J., Williams, K., Ossiannilsson, E., Rodrigo, C., S´anchez-Elvira Paniagua, A., Santamar´ıa Lancho, M., Vyt, A., & Mellar, H. (2016). Quality assessment for e-learning: A benchmarking approach. [https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC98209]
	~~Volungeviˇcien˙e~~, A., ~~Brown, M~~.~~, Greenspon, R~~.~~, Gaebel, M~~.~~, & Morrisroe, A. (2021). Developing a high performance~~ digital ~~education ecosystem: Institutional self~~-~~assessment instruments [Publication Title: European University Association~~]~~. European University Association~~		</li>
			<li id="Killen2017">
			Clare Killen, Helen Beetham, & Sarah Knight. (2017). Developing organisational approaches to digital capability [Jisc]. Retrieved September 24, 2022, from [https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/developing-organisational-approaches-to-digital-capability]
			</li>
			</ol>

University of Duisburg-Essen: Created page with "Traditional assessments often rely on subjective self-assessment instruments, as identified by Volungevičienė et al. (2021). Data-driven assessments are rare. Out of 20 instruments reviewed, only 4 are suitable for European HEIs: * COL’s Benchmarking Toolkit for Technology-Enabled Learning (Sankey & Mishra, 2019) * European Framework for Digitally Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg) (Kampylis et al., 2015) * E-xcellence Manual: Quality Assessment for..."

2024-06-01T12:24:24Z

Created page with "Traditional assessments often rely on subjective self-assessment instruments, as identified by Volungevičienė et al. (2021). Data-driven assessments are rare. Out of 20 instruments reviewed, only 4 are suitable for European HEIs: * COL’s Benchmarking Toolkit for Technology-Enabled Learning (Sankey & Mishra, 2019) * European Framework for Digitally Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg) (Kampylis et al., 2015) * E-xcellence Manual: Quality Assessment for..."

New page

Traditional assessments often rely on subjective self-assessment instruments, as identified by Volungevičienė et al. (2021). Data-driven assessments are rare.

Out of 20 instruments reviewed, only 4 are suitable for European HEIs:

* COL’s Benchmarking Toolkit for Technology-Enabled Learning (Sankey & Mishra, 2019)
* European Framework for Digitally Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg) (Kampylis et al., 2015)
* E-xcellence Manual: Quality Assessment for E-learning (Kear et al., 2016)
* JISC Guide for Developing Organizational Approaches to Digital Capability (Clare Killen et al., 2017)

Common benchmarking domains include:
* Leadership and Governance
* Policies and Strategies
* Teaching and Learning
* Training and Support
* Content and Curricula
* Infrastructure

Existing instruments tend to focus on benchmarking and quality assurance in various operational aspects of HEIs. Differences in educational systems may influence the applicability of these frameworks. Self-assessment tools for students provide insights into digital competence but are less relevant for broader institutional assessments. Quantitative approaches in other sectors, such as e-commerce and IT, suggest a more generalized but non-universal approach to assessing Digital Readiness. Trace data usage for assessment is notably absent.

'''References'''

Clare Killen, Helen Beetham, & Sarah Knight. (2017). Developing organisational approaches to digital capability [Jisc]. Retrieved September 24, 2022, from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/developing-organisational-approaches-to-digital-capability

Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Devine, J. (2015a). A european framework for digitally-competent educational organisations. https://doi.%20org/10.2791/54070

Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Devine, J. (2015b). Promoting effective digital-age learning - a european framework for digitally-competent educational organisations.

Kear, K., Rosewell, J., Williams, K., Ossiannilsson, E., Rodrigo, C., S´anchez-Elvira Paniagua, A., Santamar´ıa Lancho, M., Vyt, A., & Mellar, H. (2016). Quality assessment for e-learning: A benchmarking approach.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC98209

Sankey, M., & Mishra, S. (2019). Benchmarking toolkit for technology-enabled learning.

Volungeviˇcien˙e, A., Brown, M., Greenspon, R., Gaebel, M., & Morrisroe, A. (2021). Developing a high performance digital education ecosystem: Institutional self-assessment instruments [Publication Title: European University Association]. European University Association

Self-assessment questionnaires - Revision history

University of Duisburg-Essen at 13:52, 22 June 2024