Kth ossiannlisson 110921


Published on

KTH seminar on benchmarking on elearning, Stlm2011

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Kth ossiannlisson 110921

  1. 1. INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING OF E-LEARNING AT LUND UNIVERSITY, SWEDEN - an emerging conceptual framework<br />
  2. 2. Ebba Ossiannilsson<br />Lund University, SE and <br />Department Industrial Engineering and Management<br />Oulu University, FI<br />Footprints<br />W:www.lu.se, <br />www.oulu.fi<br />E:Ebba.Ossiannilsson@ced.lu.se<br />E:Ebba.Ossiannilsson@oulu.fi<br />FB:Ebba Ossiannilsson<br />T:@EbbaOssian<br />Phone: +4670995448<br />S:http://www.slideshare.net/EbbaOssiann<br />
  3. 3. Lund University – a hub for innovation and internationalisation<br />
  4. 4. Outline<br />Benchmarking<br />The benchmarking projects<br />Workingmethod<br />Excellence and qualitycriteria<br />An emergingconceptualframework<br />
  5. 5. Benchmarking, some definitions<br />Benchmarking is an exemplar-driven teleological process <br />operating within an organization [sic] with the objective of <br />intentionally changing an existing state of affairs into <br />a superior state of affairs. (Moriarty, 2008, p. 30). <br />…the ´locus´ of benchmarking lies between the current and desirable states of affairs and contributes to the transformation processes that realise these improvements. (Moriarty and Smallman, 2009, p. 484) <br />...is a technique, method, process, activity, incentive, or 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 circumstance<br />
  6. 6. Benchmarking<br /> “The locus of benchmarking lies between the current and desirable states of affairs and contributes to the transformation process that realizes these improvements.”<br />Moriarty & Smallman (2009)<br />En route to a theory on benchmarking <br />
  7. 7. The Benhmarking process<br />Ossiannilsson, E. (2011). Findings from European benchmarking exercises on e-learning: value and impact. CreativeEducation. Manuscript in press.<br />
  8. 8. Self evaluation for quality enhancement<br />benchmark-careers.com<br />
  9. 9. Benchmarking projectsconducted by Lund University, SE<br /><ul><li>The Swedish National Agency of HigherEducation, ELQ
  10. 10. EADTU, E-xcellence+
  11. 11. ESMU, Benchmarking eLearning exercise 2009
  12. 12. The First dual-mode distancelearning benchmarking club (Concordance)</li></li></ul><li>EADTU E-xcellence+<br />A manual on quality assurance in e-learning covering the 33 benchmarks, with related indicators to the benchmarks, guidance for improvement and references to excellence performance. <br />Assessors notes to provide a more detailed account of the issues and the approaches. <br />The online tools; the Quick Scan and the Full Assessment.<br />
  13. 13. EADTU Benchmarks and indicators<br />Strategic management<br />Products; Curriculum design, Course design, Course delivery<br />Support; Student and staff support<br />
  14. 14. The Excellence project by the European Association of <br />Distance Teaching Universities, EADTU<br />http://www.eadtu.nl/e-xcellencelabel<br />
  15. 15. Benchmarking e-learning in European universities <br />…exercise on e-learning launched in the spring of 2009<br />…initiated by the University of Southern Denmark (SDU) and gathering a group of nine European universities. April 2009 - December 2009.<br />…co-organisedby 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 approach. EADTU’s E-xcellence online tool, consisting of a set of 33 e-learning benchmarks, was used as a starting point to the benchmarking exercise<br />http://www.esmu.be/projects/94-benchmarking-elearning.html<br />
  16. 16. The First dual-mode distance benchmarking club<br />University of Leicester (coordinator) and University of Liverpool, UK, University of Southern Queensland, AU, Massey University, NZ, Thompson Rivers University, CA, and the Royal Institute of Technology, SE<br /> Tasks for Lund University, SE<br />benchmark, in accordance with the detailed criteria<br />consider the already defined and/or suggest any other critical success factors<br />based on experience and results from EADTU's <br /> E-xcellence+ and ESMU's ELBE correlate Pick&Mix with those<br />
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20. PERSONALISATION<br />Wheeler, 3 May 010, UNESCO<br />
  21. 21. Learning in focus<br />Search h<br />Filter<br />Review<br />Interpret<br />Network<br />Reflect<br />Create<br />Some rights reserved by vanhookc<br />
  22. 22. Benchmarking benefits and values<br />Targets for improvements<br />Strengthen identity, strategy, implementation<br />Enhance reputation<br />Respond to national indicators<br />New standard for the sector<br />Van Vught, F. (2008) <br />A practical guide. Benchmarking in European Higher Education<br />Self assess institutions<br />Better understand the process<br />Measure and compare<br />Discover new ideas<br />Obtain data to support decisionmaking<br />
  23. 23. Observations and reflections <br />Visions for learning in Europe in 2025 (Aceto et al., 2010)<br />Tony Bates, revolution! Or rather evolution!(http://www.tonybates.ca)<br />Wheeler, ”the threebigguns” <br /> (http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com)<br />COL-UNESCO 2011<br />IPTS<br />
  24. 24. The Three P’s Pedagogy for the Networked Society<br />Mc Loughlin & Lee (2008)<br />The Three P’s Pedagogy for the Networked Society<br />
  25. 25. Quality aspects on e-learning<br />Personalization<br />”Recent research attests to a growingappreciation of control over the wholelearning process.”<br />Participation<br />”… a greateremphasis on teacher-studentpartnership in learning, with teachers as co-learners.”<br />Productivity<br />”Students are bothproducers and consumers (”prosumers”) of knowledge, ideas and artifacts.”<br />Mc Loughlin & Lee (2008)<br />The Three P’s Pedagogy for the Networked Society<br />
  26. 26. Conclusion<br />Personalization<br />Networking<br />Globalization/localisation or glocalisation<br />Sustainability<br />Student involvement <br />Boundless education<br />Lifelong learning <br />Embedded and beyond…..<br />Holistic and conceptual<br />Formal/informallearning<br />… will be some of the leading stars in this process, together with the indicators in the conceptual framework. <br />
  27. 27. The EADTU E-xcellence Associates label<br />LUMA-GIS och IIIEE, MPE at Lund University, SE, first in Europe<br />The four areas of progress in eLearning<br />
  28. 28. ©Ossiannilsson & Landgren, 2011<br />
  29. 29. Benefits<br />respond to national performance indicators and benchmarks <br />self-assess institution<br />strengthen institutional identity<br />better understand the process<br />enhance reputation<br />measure and compare<br />set new standards for the sector<br />discover new ideas,<br />set targets for improvement<br />obtain data to support decision-making<br />van Vught et al., (2008). A practical guide. <br />Benchmarking in European HE. ESMU<br />
  30. 30. Addedvalues<br />Cultural issues.<br />Commitment<br />Attitudes<br />Ubiquitous learning<br />Passion<br />Internal processes and involvement <br />Quality enhancement<br />Involvement<br />Dedication<br />Management and commitment.<br />Collaboration and networking<br />Reflection<br />Courage<br />The concept of rhizome<br />The concept of becoming<br />(Deleuze & Guattari 1987)<br />
  31. 31. Limitations<br />Time?<br />Commitment?<br />Benchmarks?<br />Interpretations?<br />Language?<br />Who is involved?<br />
  32. 32. Rhizomeperspectives<br />S<br />
  33. 33. The door is<br />open …<br />Whatnext?<br />TIIM2011_ Oulu_Ebba Ossiannilsson 29 June 2011<br />Bild: WikimediaCommons, Push the button, CC BY SA<br />
  34. 34. Thank you for your attention<br />Ebba.Ossiannilsson@ced.lu.se<br />