You are here:

Fold-back: Using emerging technologies to move from quality assurance to quality enhancement
ARTICLE

, ,

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 32, Number 2, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

Abstract

Emerging technologies offer an opportunity for the development, at the institutional level, of quality processes with greater capacity to enhance learning in higher education than available through current quality processes. These systems offer the potential to extend use of learning analytics in institutional-level quality processes in addition to the widespread focus on business analytics, and to deliver well-constructed mixes of information from different data sources. Borrowed from music amplification, the term fold-back is proposed as a way to describe such a mix. This paper begins the design-research project of designing effective fold-back systems by expanding the theoretical assumptions about learning embedded in higher education quality processes. A number of theories building on Vygotsky’s cultural-historical approach are discussed to imagine quality in higher education in terms of what students actually do and how they engage in addition to what the institution does. The discussion is summarised in a fold-back matrix capturing the sorts of evaluation questions the systems might address. The paper concludes by providing two initial design sketches for re-purposing emerging technologies with the capacity to support expanded quality processes in education. These sketches are based on the Experience Application Programming Interface (xAPI) and Dedoose technologies.

Citation

Leonard, S., Fitzgerald, R. & Bacon, M. (2016). Fold-back: Using emerging technologies to move from quality assurance to quality enhancement. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved August 12, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ablin, J.L. (2008). Learning as problem design versus problem solving: Making the connection between cognitive neuroscience research and educational practice. Mind, Brain& Education, 2(2), 52-54.
  2. Akerlind, G.S. (2005). Academic growth and development: How do university academics experience it? Higher Education, 50(1), 1-32.
  3. Allais, S. (2011). ‘Economics imperialism’, education policy and educational theory. Journal of Education Policy, 27(2), 253-274.
  4. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
  5. Ballantyne, R., Borthwick, J., & Packer, J. (2000). Beyond student evaluation of teaching: Identifying and addressing academic staff development needs. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(3), 221-236.
  6. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
  7. Bennett, L., & Nair, C.S. (2010). A recipe for effective participation rates for web-based surveys. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 357-365.
  8. Berliner, D.C. (2009). MCLB (much curriculum left behind): A US calamity in the making. Educational Forum, 73(4), 284-296.
  9. Boysen, G.A., Kelly, T.J., Raesly, H.N., & Casner, R.W. (2014). The (mis)interpretation of teaching evaluations by college faculty and administrators. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 641-656.
  10. Burrows, S., & Shortis, M. (2011). An evaluation of semi-automated, collaborative marking and feedback systems: Academic staff perspectives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 11351154. Retrieved from http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/909
  11. Campbell, D.T. (1976). Assessing the impact of planned social change, Paper #8. Paper presented at the Occasional Paper Series, Darthmouth College, Hanover, NH.
  12. Carrell, S.E., & West, J.E. (2010). Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors. Journal of Political Economy, 118(3), 409-432.
  13. Cheung, W.S., & Hew, K.F. (2011). Design and evaluation of two blended learning approaches: Lessons learned. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1319-1337. Retrieved from http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/issue/view/12
  14. Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25-36.
  15. Crockett, L., Jukes, I., & Churches, A. (2011). Literacy in not enough: 21st-century fluencies for the digital age. Kelowna, BC & Thousand Oaks, CA: 21st Century Fluency Project& Corwin.
  16. Davies, P. (2006). How can we recognise them? In J. Meyer, & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  17. Dedoose. (2014). Dedoose. Retrieved from http://www.dedoose.com Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(2).
  18. Elassy, N. (2015). The concepts of quality, quality assurance and quality enhancement. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(3), 250-261.
  19. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-155.
  20. Engeström, Y. (2006). Activity theory and expansive design. In S. Bagnara, & G.C. Smith (Eds.), Theories and practice in interaction design. (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  21. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  22. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81112.
  23. Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New York, NY: Routledge.
  24. Hayes, D., Lingard, B., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2006). Teachers& Schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen& Unwin.
  25. Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555-1577.
  26. Kane, D., Williams, J., & Cappuccini-Ansfield, G. (2008). Student satisfaction surveys: The value in taking an historical perspective. Quality in Higher Education, 14(2), 135-155.
  27. Kyte, D., Ives, J., Draper, H., Keeley, T., & Calvert, M. (2013). Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: A potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e76625.
  28. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Leckey, J., & Neill, N. (2001). Quantifying quality: The importance of student feedback. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 19-32.
  30. Leonard, S.N., & Roberts, P. (2014). Performers and postulates: the role of evolving socio-historical contexts in shaping new teacher professional identities. Critical Studies in Education, 55(3), 303-318.
  31. Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational research. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355-382.
  32. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2013). 'Catalyst data': Perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in Australian schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 634-656.
  33. Marton, F., & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  34. Miller, J.E., & Seldin, P. (2014). Changing practices in faculty evaluation. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
  35. Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M.A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442-257. Retrieved from http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/issue/view/34
  36. Nair, C.S., Mertova, P., & Pawley, D. (2010). Quality in action: Closing the loop. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(2), 144-155.
  37. Nelson, K.J., Smith, J.E., & Clarke, J.A. (2012). Enhancing the transition of commencing students into university: An institution-wide approach. Higher Education Research& Development, 31(2), 185199.
  38. Newton, G., & Martin, E. (2013). Blooming, SOLO taxonomy, and phenomenography as assessment strategies in undergraduate science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(2), 78.
  39. Pitman, T. (2014). Reinterpreting higher education quality in response to policies of mass education: The Australian experience. Quality in Higher Education, 20(3), 348-363.
  40. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129-150.
  41. Sandoval, W.A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213-223.
  42. Sandoval, W.A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199-201.
  43. Scott, G., Shah, M., Grebennikov, L., & Singh, H. (2008). Improving student retention: A University of Western Sydney case study. Journal of Institutional Research, 14(1), 1-23. Retrieved from http://www.aair.org.au/articles/volume-14-no-1/14-1-improving-student-retention-a-university-ofwestern-sydney-case-study
  44. Shah, M. (2012). Ten years of external quality audit in Australia: Evaluating its effectiveness and success. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 761-772.
  45. Shum, S.B., & Ferguson, R. (2011). Social learning analytics. [Available as: Technical Report KMI-1101] (Retrieved from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/publications/pdf/kmi-11-01.pdf). London: Knowledge
  46. Symons, R. (2006). Listening to the student voice at the University of Sydney: Closing the loop in the quality enhancement and improvement cycle. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Institutional Research Forum, Coffs Harbour, NSW. Retrieved from http://www.aair.org.au/app/webroot/media/pdf/AAIRFora/Forum2006/Symons.pdf
  47. Usher, R. (2006). Lyotard’s performance. Studies in Philosophy& Education, 25(4), 279-288. of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(2). Ascilite
  48. Verenikina, I. (2010). Vygotsky in twenty-first-century research. In J. Herrington, & C. Montgomerie (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2010, Totonto, Canada, 16-25. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/34614/
  49. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  50. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & Laat, M.D. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Heerlen: Ruud de Moor Centrum. Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/documents/Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf
  52. Wiggins, G.P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  53. Wong, V.Y.-Y. (2012). An alternative view of quality assurance and enhancement. Management in Education, 26(1), 38-42.
  54. Young, S.D., & Jaganath, D. (2013). Online social networking for HIV education and prevention: A mixed methods analysis. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 40(2).

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections