Is Quality Assurance Compatible with Technological Innovation? Case Studies of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in United Kingdom Higher Education

Autor/inn/en	Al-Imarah, Ahmed A.; Shields, Robin; Kamm, Richard
Titel	Is Quality Assurance Compatible with Technological Innovation? Case Studies of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in United Kingdom Higher Education
Quelle	In: Quality in Higher Education, 27 (2021) 1, S.4-19 (16 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1353-8322
DOI	10.1080/13538322.2021.1830474
Schlagwörter	Quality Assurance; Educational Quality; Technological Advancement; Educational Innovation; Open Education; Online Courses; Educational Technology; College Administration; Universities; Correlation; Evaluation Criteria; Foreign Countries; United Kingdom (Wales); United Kingdom (Scotland); United Kingdom (England) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Qualitätssicherung; Quality of education; Bildungsqualität; Technological development; Technologische Entwicklung; Instructional innovation; Bildungsinnovation; Offene Erziehung; Offener Unterricht; Online course; Online-Kurs; Unterrichtsmedien; College administrators; Hochschulverwaltung; University; Universität; Korrelation; Ausland
Abstract	Both innovation and quality assurance are prominent concerns in higher education institutions but research is ambiguous with respect to the relationship between quality assurance and innovation. Specifically, it is unclear whether quality assurance supports innovation or, conversely, acts as a hindrance. As a relatively new innovation, massive open online courses (MOOCs) yield insights into the relationship between quality assurance and innovation in higher education institutions. This article explores how quality assurance is adapted to accommodate MOOCs based on case studies in five universities in the United Kingdom. Our findings suggest that quality assurance does not support innovations such as MOOCs because most universities use a relatively superficial approach that focuses on technical requirements rather than academic quality. The study provides suitable empirical evidence to support a cogent argument that universities should evaluate MOOCs through quality assurance, both to identify strengths and to expose weaknesses that need to be developed. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01