**4. Discussion**

categories of capabilities were the iterative development of the previous categories of: *teachers including sessional staff* and *subject coordinators or those with leadership responsibility for teaching*. The capabilities were expressed so that stakeholders using the Framework could facilitate a

a. 'Yes' signifying they were achieving the capability and thus should maintain this perfor-

b. 'Yes but' signifying they are largely achieving the capability but some further development

c. 'No' signifying they are not achieving the capability and as such this capability is an area for further development and potentially the focus of subsequent professional development

d. N/A signifying the capability does not relate to the job role or associated responsibilities.

The inference in the design of this iteration of the Framework is that the capabilities listed are illustrations of desired performance as well as best practice that should be either maintained or espoused. Examples of indicative evidence that could be used to inform the self-assessment is provided, which is also intended to encourage robust and substantiated assessment based on fact rather than personal assumptions based on "gut" feelings. The capabilities are not intended as a definitive list but rather a starting point from which discussions about career progression and development needs can transpire, between the stakeholder and their super-

The final stage in the development of the Framework was the presentation of version three at an international learning and teaching symposium - The 12th Annual Conference of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL), held in Melbourne, Australia in October 2015. This stage was designed to ascertain and validate the relevance of the Framework to the higher education sector. An opportunity for interested academics to self-nominate for a peer review roundtable symposium, to interrogate the

• Undertake a brief priority analysis of the Framework criteria and capabilities (a matrix of

• Suggest strategies for engaging and getting buy-in of academic staff in the use of the

• Identify challenges that might face leaders trying to utilise a tool such as this as a means of

• Rationalise how the Framework capabilities differ in the online and physical teaching

self-assessment and decide which assessment outcome was most applicable:

mance standard;

20 Global Voices in Higher Education

activity; or

visor/governing body.

Framework;

environments.

is warranted and should be planned;

**3.4. International peer review and validation**

Framework, was provided. Roundtable participants were asked to:

how important and how common each of the capabilities were);

facilitating innovation, particularly regarding eLearning; and

Originally the focus of this project was to develop an eLearning Framework but early in the project, during discussions with IGNOU, the need to identify eTeaching capabilities as the antecedents to eLearning became very obvious. This realisation led to a premise, which subsequently guided the initiative, that effective eTeaching is the foundation for successful eLearning.

Across all of the consultation forums, facilitated to develop and progress the Framework, the importance of institutional infrastructure and culture to promote and progress eLearning and eTeaching capacity was noted. The eTeaching capability of teachers was acknowledged as both a means of progressing online learning and a potential barrier to advancement depending on level of competence. There was recognition that eTeaching responsibilities differed between teachers facilitating the learning and leaders responsible for the administration of the learning, which included program directors, course coordinators, faculty executive and institutional managers. This perception led to the differentiation of capabilities, in the final version of the Framework, for eTeachers and eTeaching leaders.

A direct outcome of the expert and academic consultation was the need to review and align to existing learning and teaching frameworks and quality measures of teaching, valued across the international and Australian Higher Education sector. The importance of this activity in the development of the Framework was to ensure that the final version of the Framework was aligned with existing tools and therefore added to the quantum in online teaching. The frameworks and quality measurement tools that were subsequently reviewed included:

• ACODE TEL Benchmarks

(http://www.acode.edu.au/pluginfile.php/550/mod\_resource/content/7/TEL\_Benchmarks. pdf)

• Australian University Teaching Criteria and Standards Framework

(http://uniteachingcriteria.edu.au/)


The Framework was recognised at the international learning and teaching symposium as a means for individuals, units and institutions to identify:


design, technical support and online content development; and robust and appropriate systems to support online learning and management.


The Framework is intended to be underpinned and informed by evidence; and while a range of indicative evidence artefacts have been suggested in the final version of the Framework, how these are used will depend on the individual, unit and institution as well as the situation. The Framework has been developed to deliberately be generic so that is can be adapted to suit varying contexts, audiences and needs.

A major limitation of the initiative described in this chapter is the sample size of reviewers and critical friends who contributed, through the consultation forums, to the development of the Framework. A reassurance that the project team had to this limitation was that those who did contribute were able to knowledgeably do so and as such their contributions were valuable and highly beneficial to the conceptualisation of the resulting Framework.
