Self-assessment questionnaires: Difference between revisions
(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...") |
No edit summary |
||
| 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 | * European Framework for Digitally Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg)<sup>[[#Kampylis2015a|[3]]][[#Kampylis2015b|[4]]]</sup> | ||
* European Framework for Digitally Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg) | * E-xcellence Manual: Quality Assessment for E-learning<sup>[[#Kear2016|[5]]]</sup> | ||
* E-xcellence Manual: Quality Assessment for E-learning | * JISC Guide for Developing Organizational Approaches to Digital Capability<sup>[[#Killen2017|[6]]]</sup> | ||
* JISC Guide for Developing Organizational Approaches to Digital Capability | |||
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> | |||
== References == | |||
<ol class="references"> | |||
<li id="Volungeviciene2021"> | |||
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> | |||
<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. | </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> | |||
<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] | |||
</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> | |||
Latest revision as of 13:52, 22 June 2024
Traditional assessments often rely on subjective self-assessment instruments, as identified by Volungevičienė et al. (2021)[1]. 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[2]
- European Framework for Digitally Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg)[3][4]
- E-xcellence Manual: Quality Assessment for E-learning[5]
- JISC Guide for Developing Organizational Approaches to Digital Capability[6]
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.[1]
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.
- 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. [1]
- 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. [2]
- Clare Killen, Helen Beetham, & Sarah Knight. (2017). Developing organisational approaches to digital capability [Jisc]. Retrieved September 24, 2022, from [3]
The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.