Paul Bacsich 18 February 2006
A concordance of Marshall’s e
-Learning Maturity Model
with Bacsich’s Pick & Mix Model
Stephen Marshall’s e
-Learning Maturity Model (eMM) is being used as the methodological basis of the benchmarking activity in the University of Manchester. However, since theUniversity of Manchester
is a member of Paul Bacsich’s mini
-club of four universities, all theothers of which are using the Pick & Mix methodology, it was felt useful to provide amapping between eMM and Pick & Mix in order to facilitate comparison and commondialogue.In its current form (it is due to change in the next release
some details are known), eMMhas 43 criteria, grouped into five categories:
Coordination & Support
OrganisationPick & Mix in its core version has 18 criteria. They are not grouped into categories but it is
likely that they could be, using for example the “phases” of e
learning from the “Costs of Networked Learning” studies –
or alternatively, by using the categories of Marshall.The next version of Pick & Mix is under construction
it will add to the core criteria and also permit use of local criteria for an institution.The following pages provide a concordance into the emerging new release of Pick & Mix of each of the five categories of eMM. (See the Appendix for an indication of the current state.)
It has to be pointed out that there are several methodological differences between eMM andPick & Mix. These are likely to make it hard to deploy an
eMM in UK HE.1.
A minor one is that each eMM criterion is expressed in terms of a narrative of good practice whereas each Pick & Mix criterion is a more stark statement with suggestionsof how to measure it at various levels of compliance.2.
A slightly more major one is that the thrust (so far) of eMM has been at programme or
project level so that some statements have the “tone” of being about courses not the
but some rewording of these can be done if it causes confusion.3.
A much more major difference is that the scope of eMM goes into areas whichtraditionally in the UK are seen as the province of general good practice in teachingand learning (and thus the province of QAA) rather than the province of e-learningtechnology or pedagogy (and thus of JISC or HEA). Thus the scope of Pick & Mix isconsiderably narrower.4.
Coupled with this is the feeling that each of the “national” benchmarking criteria sets
inevitably focusses on
a “rhetoric” of
features and issues that are seen as of more thanaverage importance. This comes out clearly below with eMM and Pick & Mix but