Ossiannilsson tiim2011

Findings from European benchmarking exercices on e-learning: value andexercices on e-learning: value and impact

Footprints

W:www.oulu.fi; www.lu.se/ced

E:[email protected]

E:[email protected]

FB:Ebba Ossiannilsson

T:@EbbaOssian

Phone: +4670995448

S:http://www.slideshare.net/EbbaOssiann

http://www.eadtu.nl/e-xcellencelabel

TIIM2011_ Oulu_Ebba Ossiannilsson 29 June 2011

Benchmarking elearning in European universities

…exercise on e-learning launched in the spring of 2009…initiated by the University of Southern Denmark (SDU) and gathering a group of nine European universities. April 2009 - December 2009.

i d b ESMU d E A i i f Di T hi…co-organised by ESMU and European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU; www.eadtu.nl), combined ESMU’s collaborative benchmarking approach (benchmarking through a comparative exercise of good practices between universities) and EADTU’s more individually-oriented

http://www esmu be/projects/94 benchmarking

g p ) yapproach. EADTU’s E-xcellence online tool, consisting of a set of 33 e-learning benchmarks, is used as a starting point to the benchmarking exercise

http://www.esmu.be/projects/94-benchmarking-elearning.html


Self evaluationSelf evaluation


Self evaluation for quality enhancementSelf evaluation for quality enhancement


Benchmarking is an exemplar-driventeleological process operating within anorganization [sic] with the objective of

Benchmarking is an exemplar driven teleological process

intentionally changing an existing state ofaffairs into a superior state of affairs (Moriarty,2008, p. 30).

Benchmarking is an exemplar-driven teleological processoperating within an organization [sic] with the objective ofintentionally changing an existing state of affairs intoa superior state of affairs. (Moriarty, 2008, p. 30).

…the ´locus´ of benchmarking lies between the current and desirable states of affairs and contributes to the transformation processes

...is a technique, method, process, activity, incentive, or

f pthat realise these improvements. (Moriarty and Smallman, 2009, p. 484)

q , , p , y, ,reward which conventional wisdom regards as more effective at delivering a particular outcome than any other technique, method, process, etc. when applied to a particular condition or circumstanceor circumstance


What can be achieved/how to improvehi h f….high performance

High perfomance


The Benhmarking process

Determine what to

benchmarkbenchmark

Form a benchmarking Take action

team

Identify benchmarkong

partners

Collect and analyse

benchmarking information

Ossiannilsson, E. (2011). Findings fromEuropean benchmarking exercises on e-learning: value and impact CreativeEducationlearning: value and impact. CreativeEducation.Manuscript in press.


Why?Why?

•Why did your university joined the benchmarking project?

•What was your opinion of the process ft it l ti ?after its completion?

•In your opinion, where there any drawbacks within the project process?drawbacks within the project process?

•Do you have any additional thoughts regarding the involvement in theregarding the involvement in the benchmarking?

Photo: CC AT NC SA Some rights reserved by Leo Reynolds


Research approach:

Exploratory multiple case study strategy, p y p y gy,Yin, 2003, 2009

Cross case anayses, with embedded and multiple unites of analysesmultiple unites of analyses


Respondents E-excellence+ e-learning benchmarking exerciseE excellence+ e learning benchmarking exercise

Α Alpha xΒ Beta xΒ Beta xΓ Gamma xΔ Delta xΕ Epsilon x Ζ Zeta x x

Respondents involved in the benchmarking projects, EADTU E-xcellence+ and the ESMU e-learning benchmarking exercise. Ossiannilsson, E. (2011). Findings from European benchmarking exercises on e-learning: value and impact. CreativeEducation. Manuscript in press.


cc. Findings from European benchmarking exercises on e-learning: value and impact. CreativeEducation. Manuscript in press.


BenefitsBenefits

self-assess institution respond to national performance indicators d b h k

better understand the process strengthen institutional identity

and benchmarks

measure and compareenhance reputation

set new standards for the sector

discover new ideas,set targets for improvement

f

obtain data to support decision-makingvan Vught et al., (2008). A practical guide.


g , ( ) p gBenchmarking in European HE. ESMU

C lt l i

Added valuesCultural issues.

AttitudesPassion

Commitment

Internal processes and involvementQuality enhancement

Management and commitment.

Collaboration and networking

Dedication

Collaboration and networking

ReflectionCourage

The concept of rhizome

Th t f b i


The concept of becoming

Policy statement

Quality improvement and quality assurance

Dialogue

Transparency

Teambuilding

Some key findings on the use of EADTU benchmarking QuickScan tool. Ossiannilsson (2011).


LimitationsLimitationsTime?

Committment?

Benchmarks?

Interpretations?

Language?

Who is involved?

Language?


The door isopen …

What next?

Bild: Wikimedia Commons, Push the button, CC BY SA


TIIM2011_ Oulu_Ebba Ossiannilsson 29 June 2011 Ossiannilsson & Landgren, 2011

Opening Pandora’s box

Some rights reserved by Christiaan Botha


Thank you!

Photo: CC AT NC SA Some rights reserved by Travelin' Librarian


Findings from European benchmarking exercices onexercices on e-learning: value and impact

Footprints

W:www.oulu.fi; www.lu.se/ced

E:[email protected]

E:[email protected]

FB:Ebba Ossiannilsson

T:@EbbaOssian

Phone: +4670995448

S:http://www.slideshare.net/EbbaOssiann

Ossiannilsson tiim2011

Education

Transcript of Ossiannilsson tiim2011