Search results

The purpose of the paper is to introduce the concept of a checklist, focusing on the detailed analysis of requirements of the AACSB International – the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) standards related to the learning and teaching area – for evaluation of implementation readiness in a business school setting.

The present study adopted a multi-method approach for developing the final content of the checklist.

The introduction of the checklist has provided a systemic approach to process design and evaluation of readiness of a business school for AACSB accreditation related to the learning and teaching area. The checklist was developed and applied over the course of systematic reviews in a business school setting.

The checklist has been developed considering the requirements of the AACSB standards related to the learning and teaching area only. In the near future, the authors intend to develop checklists for the remaining areas of AACSB standards.

This research offers a comprehensive checklist comprising the requirements of the standards related to the learning and teaching area. The checklist would be useful to the business schools that are planning to implement AACSB standards for accreditation or are interested in changing their current processes to follow AACSB standards.

This paper aims to explain the distinction between educational standards and learning outcomes and to indicate the problems that potentially arise when a learning outcomes approach is applied to a qualification meta‐framework like the European Qualification Framework, or indeed to national qualification frameworks.

The methods used are documentary, political and conceptual analysis, with some reference to empirical work carried out in relation to other projects.

It is found that there are substantial differences between learning outcomes and standards with large educational and political implications. Furthermore, the “pure” form of learning outcomes approach contains a design flaw, which makes its coherent implementation problematic.

The stimulation of further research on learning outcomes based approaches to qualifications and the problems that arise in their implementation.

The EU needs to think carefully about the fitness for purpose of the current descriptors for EQF and whether or not it is desirable to move away from a pure outcome‐based approach to qualification frameworks and meta‐frameworks.

As far as the authors are aware, this is the first paper to draw attention to this distinction.

Recently, a great buzz has been surrounding e‐learning standards. But what are these e‐learning “standards”, and what do they mean to the people designing and implementing e‐learning initiatives? Today, it may translate into confusion and a daunting level of research and mental investment. But, in the future, this work should give e‐learning the flexibility taken for granted in other applications. Standards often feel remote and abstract, yet they have impact on people’s lives every day. Content prepared for one system cannot be transferred easily, if at all, to another. If a company licenses a third‐party library, they find that the content not only is married to a specific delivery system but is also dependent upon a specific interface requiring its own log‐on and system for transcripts. It is no wonder that e‐learning activities remain more fragmented and less convenient than they should. Examines the issues around e‐learning standards and how a long‐term strategy can benefit your organization.

The purpose of this study is to propose a framework for developing standards for knowledge management education programs from primary through tertiary levels. The lack of standards for knowledge management education is a significant challenge for the advancement of the field, for the sustainability of institutional programs, the future competencies of knowledge workers and the effective growth of knowledge organizations.

The research adopts and adapts the framework and methodology used to establish educational standards in computer science. The framework is presented as a focal point for discussion across the profession. Nine strands are derived from historical treatment of the discipline. Seven levels of learning are identified. Learning goals and objectives are developed for each level.

The research suggests that a lifelong learning model is definable for the field of knowledge management, just as it has been for other disciplines. The progressive learning model may produce high school graduates who are better prepared for knowledge work, a larger population of knowledge practitioners and professionals prepared to support and lead knowledge organizations and increased quantities and improved quality of knowledge management research. Finally, the progressive learning model may generate a new and increased demand for lifelong learning opportunities in the field of knowledge management.

The research is intended as a focal point for discussion and review by knowledge management professionals and particularly educators around the globe. The research represents an important stage of development, but adoption is the final stage of this research.

While this research draws upon established theories and practices in the field, and learning frameworks from other domains, the context and the research results are unique.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce and describe the features of a new e‐learning quality framework developed for a large multi‐campus university. The framework is explicitly designed to improve the quality of e‐learning sites and the quality of online student learning, by developing the skills of the academics who design the sites.

This is a conceptual paper. It examines a range of existing models and literature on evaluative frameworks in e‐learning and positions the new framework within that context. It describes the features that distinguish the new framework from existing models and explains how these differences are tailored to develop the e‐learning design skills of academic staff and to encourage greater engagement with e‐learning quality initiatives across the university.

The paper identifies several features of the new framework that differ from other models and explains the inclusion of these features in terms of the support they provide for quality improvement at a university where academics are the main designers of e‐learning sites.

The paper makes a contribution to the literature on quality initiatives in e‐learning by introducing a new quality framework that differs in significant respects from other models. The rationale underpinning the inherently developmental design of this framework, as set out in this paper, may be useful to other universities where academics are the main designers of e‐learning sites.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a selected bibliography of recent resources on library instruction and information literacy.

The paper introduces and annotates periodical articles, monographs, and audiovisual material examining library instruction and information literacy.

Information is provided about each source, and the paper discusses the characteristics of current scholarship, and describes sources that contain unique scholarly contributions and quality reproductions.

The information may be used by librarians and interested parties as a quick reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.

The aim of this paper is to outline the collaborative approach used to craft national learning standards for tertiary programs in the field of environment and sustainability in Australia. The field of environment and sustainability is broad and constituted by diverse stakeholders. As such, articulating a common set of learning standards presents challenges.

The authors developed and used a staged collaborative curriculum design methodology to engage more than 250 stakeholders in tertiary environmental education, including discipline scholars, students, professional associations and employers and other environmental educators. The approach was adaptive, to ensure underrepresented stakeholders’ perspectives were welcomed and recognised. The project was commissioned by the Australian Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (ACEDD) and funded by the Federal Government’s Office for Learning and Teaching.

The collaborative approach developed and used for this work facilitated an inclusive process that valued diversity of perspectives, rather than marginalise diversity in favour of a perspective representing a minimum level of agreement. This is reflected in the standards themselves, and is evidenced by participant feedback, piloting of the standards and their subsequent application at multiple universities. Achieving this required careful planning and facilitation, to ensure a democratisation of the stakeholder consultation process, and to build consensus in support of the standards. Endorsement by ACEDD formalised the standards’ status.

Collaborative curriculum design offered the opportunity to foster a shared sense of common purpose amongst diverse environmental education stakeholders. This approach to curriculum design is intensive and generative but uncommon and may be usefully adapted and applied in other contexts. The authors note one subsequent instance where the approach has been further developed and applied in transforming a generalist science program, suggesting the methodology used in this case may be applied across other contexts, albeit with appropriate adjustments: the authors offer it here in the spirit of supporting others in their own complex curriculum design challenges.

To set‐up a classification of the types of profiles and competencies that are required to set‐up a good e‐learning programme. This approach provides a framework within which a set of standards can be defined for e‐trainers.

Open and distance learning (ODL) has been developing in Europe, due to new tools in information technology but the way in which it is carried out varies from country to country. Up until now, the focus has usually been to study technical standards although it is now more beneficial to carry out research on non‐technical standards. The methodology is based on the Isfol methodology, created in Italy in 1998 and adapted for this survey.

This paper gives the results of a survey that was conducted in four European countries, England, France, Italy and Portugal, and gives an insight into the different professional profiles associated with this new type of learning.

This analysis represents just the first step towards quality and accreditation.

This research highlights the best way to conduct an e‐learning project involving the best participant profiles.

This paper provides a pan‐European approach to ODL and outlines the major professional profiles used in each country. It highlights non‐technical standards.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how US school leaders and teachers make sense of multiple accountability policies, including the Common Core State Standards and teacher evaluation, and how this process relates to school priorities and classroom practice.

This study uses a comparative case study approach to understand how principals and teachers in three high-poverty urban schools respond to policy.

Although principals and teachers viewed academic standards and the teacher evaluation framework as complementary, two of the three schools focused on meeting the expectations of the teacher evaluation framework at the expense of attention to academic standards. Without attention to the connections among policies and school priorities, the introduction of new policies may detract from rather than reinforce attention to academic standards.

Principals who are stronger instructional leaders may be better able to “craft coherence” among multiple standards-based policies and school priorities for instruction and student learning. Although their experiences are not generalizable, findings suggest that attending to standards for student and teacher performance without connecting to the implications for content and students’ learning may lead to superficial integration of accountability policies with school priorities.

Findings provide further evidence that principals play an essential role in responding to policy and suggest that districts and external support providers can assist their efforts by creating opportunities for professional learning about the connections among multiple policies and their implications for practice.

This paper extends Honig and Hatch’s conceptualization of “crafting coherence” to the work of teachers and the implications for classroom practice.