Evaluating the Use of E-Learning at KSU Using the E-learning Maturity Model

Evaluating the Use of E-Learning at KSU Using the E-learning Maturity Model

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Evaluating the Use of E-Learning at KSU Using the E-learning Maturity Model Abstract This paper presents an evaluation of the use of e-learning at King Saud University (KSU) using the e-learning Maturity Model (eMM). The main essence of the eMM is improving the course-level adoption of e-learning, as well as the institution-wide integration of e-learning. Using a questionnaire based method of data collection; this investigative research was conducted on both male and female sample populations from various departments and levels at KSU. The preliminary findings and analysis, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses of KSU e-learning implementation plan, in reference to the eMM standards, will be discussed herein. Keywords: e-learning, eMM, CMM, process improvement models Introduction: Many educational institutions are now competing to present as many e-learning opportunities to their students and clients as possible. This competition stems from the perceived benefits and opportunities e-learning promises to provide to learners worldwide. Unfortunately, very few of these institutions ensure that this process is fully effective on both the pedagogical and administrational levels. Added to these problems of implementation, is the rising cost of adoption of e-learning. Institutions need to make sure that the return on investment is worth the financial commitments (Marshall & Mitchell, 2004). Many researchers have reported that despite large investments in e-learning, there are still some doubts over: the quality, extent of students’ achievements, and learning outcomes (Taylor, 2001). While some institutions have reported some success in the process of integration, others have reported many problems and struggles, especially with the tension between: technology, organizations, and pedagogy (Laurillard, 1993; Reid, 1999). These different experiences of success and failure indicate the importance of creating a benchmark to judge the e-learning experiences against (Bacsich, 2005). Even after creating these benchmarks, success is not guaranteed. As stated by (Marshall and Mitchell, 2006) “The failures of the US Open University and UkeU (House of Commons, 2005), despite following established approaches used successfully by other organizations, clearly demonstrate that there is no ‘silver bullet’ for e-learning” (P. 203). Added to these concerns is the fact that the analysis of e-learning models and benefits has sometimes been conducted at the individual level, and in isolation from the context in which the e-learning is taking place. These initiatives on the individual level tried to document “best practices” and resulted in what may be considered first benchmarks. One of these first benchmarks is ‘the seven principles’ that was created originally in 1987 to describe the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education and later modified to relate these practices to ICT (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). Among other works that attempted to theorize the best
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/13/2011 for the course PUK 202 taught by Professor Roth during the Spring '10 term at Universität Klagenfurt.

Page1 / 10

Evaluating the Use of E-Learning at KSU Using the E-learning Maturity Model

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online