Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance, and Benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning

Managing quality processes become critically important for higher education institutions generally, but especially for institutions involved in open and distance learning. In Australia, managers of centers responsible for open and distance learning have identified two frameworks that potentially off...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Alistair Inglis
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Athabasca University Press 2005
Materias:	higher education enterprise systems change management integrated systems Special aspects of education LC8-6691
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/5fba2ea0f5844946814e2e26dcdfa186
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:5fba2ea0f5844946814e2e26dcdfa186
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:5fba2ea0f5844946814e2e26dcdfa1862021-12-02T19:25:49ZQuality Improvement, Quality Assurance, and Benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning10.19173/irrodl.v6i1.2211492-3831https://doaj.org/article/5fba2ea0f5844946814e2e26dcdfa1862005-03-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/221https://doaj.org/toc/1492-3831Managing quality processes become critically important for higher education institutions generally, but especially for institutions involved in open and distance learning. In Australia, managers of centers responsible for open and distance learning have identified two frameworks that potentially offer ways of conceiving of the application of quality processes: the Quality Framework published in Inglis, Ling, and Joosten (1999); and the Benchmarking Framework published in McKinnon, Walker, and Davis (2000). However, managers who have been considering applying one or other framework within their institutional contexts have had to face the issue of how they should choose between, or combine the use, of these frameworks. Part of their dilemma lies in distinguishing among the related functions of quality improvement, quality assurance, and benchmarking. This article compares the frameworks in terms of their scope, institutional application, structures, and method of application, and then considers what implications the similarities and differences between the frameworks have for their use.Alistair InglisAthabasca University Pressarticlehigher educationenterprise systemschange managementintegrated systemsSpecial aspects of educationLC8-6691ENInternational Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol 6, Iss 1 (2005)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	higher education enterprise systems change management integrated systems Special aspects of education LC8-6691
spellingShingle	higher education enterprise systems change management integrated systems Special aspects of education LC8-6691 Alistair Inglis Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance, and Benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning
description	Managing quality processes become critically important for higher education institutions generally, but especially for institutions involved in open and distance learning. In Australia, managers of centers responsible for open and distance learning have identified two frameworks that potentially offer ways of conceiving of the application of quality processes: the Quality Framework published in Inglis, Ling, and Joosten (1999); and the Benchmarking Framework published in McKinnon, Walker, and Davis (2000). However, managers who have been considering applying one or other framework within their institutional contexts have had to face the issue of how they should choose between, or combine the use, of these frameworks. Part of their dilemma lies in distinguishing among the related functions of quality improvement, quality assurance, and benchmarking. This article compares the frameworks in terms of their scope, institutional application, structures, and method of application, and then considers what implications the similarities and differences between the frameworks have for their use.
format	article
author	Alistair Inglis
author_facet	Alistair Inglis
author_sort	Alistair Inglis
title	Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance, and Benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning
title_short	Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance, and Benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning
title_full	Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance, and Benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning
title_fullStr	Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance, and Benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning
title_full_unstemmed	Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance, and Benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning
title_sort	quality improvement, quality assurance, and benchmarking: comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning
publisher	Athabasca University Press
publishDate	2005
url	https://doaj.org/article/5fba2ea0f5844946814e2e26dcdfa186
work_keys_str_mv	AT alistairinglis qualityimprovementqualityassuranceandbenchmarkingcomparingtwoframeworksformanagingqualityprocessesinopenanddistancelearning
_version_	1718376561340579840

Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance, and Benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning

Ejemplares similares