The following is a visual representation of the eMM model and its structural components in relation to my context. Apologies for the difficulty in reading the detail – I’ll work on improving that.
The dimensions contain a number of process categories that examine performance based on examples of normal practice, so that the capability of the institution as a whole is examined, rather than just best practice. That means it looks at what the majority are doing, not just the star innovators.
The model aims to focus on standard, reproducable e-Learning processes, regardless of the different technologies and teaching practices in individual institutions, so that meaningful comparisons can be made across the educational sector.
It is a very complex set of processes for an institution to follow. It involves the examination of large amounts of detail which requires considerable time and resource.
There is still an element of personal judgement in determining capability so the evidence that supports the assessment is critical.
Recommendation for using the eMM in my personal context.
Yes, I think that, with appropriate resourcing, the eMM would provide a comprehensive detailed assessment of the eLearning capability in my tertiary context. For an institution in which change is the only constant, it would provide a ‘big picture’ understanding of how well the institution is achieving its goals, how they shape up against comparable institutions, and how and where they need to improve.
Marshall, S. (2007). E-Learning Maturity Model: Process descriptions [draft report]. Retrieved from http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/documents/versiontwothree/20070620ProcessDescriptions.pdf
Victoria University. (2008). E-Learning Maturity Model: Version two [Website]. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/VersionTwo.shtml