Evaluation of the Swiss Virtual Campus - Schweizerische ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

their class website, are not considered to be elearning elsewhere. These are perhaps necessary steps on the way to developing an elearning culture, but in the context of presential teaching, elearning is generally considered to include: • the use of multimedia resources for demonstrating things that would be too dangerous, too inconvenient or too expensive to provide hands on experience of in the classroom; • the use of online discussion forums in which students learn the value of peer-to-peer learning, collaborative learning and closer interaction with the teacher than is possible in lecture-based teaching; • the use of a very wide selection of online resources in order to reduce teacher dependency and increase student-centred learning; • the use of activities, projects, presentations and debates as a means of making higher education more active and interactive, and less a regurgitation of information provided by the lecturer. Some of these benefits were apparent in a few of the funded projects, but on the whole, the elearning component was an add-on to existing provision. This approach can never be sustainable because of (i) cost (ii) teacher workload (iii) student workload. In order to be sustainable, elearning has to REPLACE other forms of teaching and study. Examples include: reducing lecturing time and reducing the amount of curriculum covered. The advantages of the proper uses of elearning can only be gained when students have time to reflect, discuss and problem-solve, and when the assessment processes are adapted to reflect the new skills being encouraged. The panel are not proposing the abandonment of face-to-face teaching; far from it. Elearning is as necessary an approach in presential teaching as it is in distance teaching. The panelʼs conclusion about the extent to which this successful initiative will continue without further funding are more mixed. Some of the CCSPs had clearly been very effective and were positioned to continue. Others clearly were not. Similarly, a few projects had integrated the Bologna process changes with the SVC project, but most had not. This seemed to the panel to be a lost opportunity. For some projects, the partnerships amongst the partner institutions were very fruitful, just as was envisaged by the SVC goals. However, there was considerable doubt as to whether any partnerships would continue after 2008. Some SVC projects had introduced various forms of interactive learning, but many projects were dated, purely text-based or seemed rather pedestrian. Finally, some participants were satisfied with the support and training they received (from the CCSPs), but others were not and this left the panel with doubts about 36
how sustainable the initiative would be after the funding finished. Certainly, the CCSPs have achieved a stabilisation of elearning, support and services, but because of their relative size and status, they may not be the future promotor of elearning or the major developer for new projects. The sustainability of elearning initiatives is not about technology. As we know, technologies change, sometimes with alarming speed. What is crucial to elearning sustainability is an understanding of the pedagogy underlying the use of any technology in education. Pedagogies change as well, or rather they evolve, but the change is very much slower than technology change. Consequently what will maintain the SVC impetus is not a technical centre but a teaching/learning centre with good technical staff. While the panel received assurances about the integration and continuation of some funded projects, there were alarming indications that others had simply dissolved: • the staff had left the university; • the partner had pulled out because the curriculum was different; • the CCSP would not continue; • only the first year students had been exposed to elearning and senior staff remained uninvolved in SVC. Some projects were teaching students new skills or providing multimedia experiences at the forefront of the discipline. However the panel was told, “these developments will always require funding.” Some professors had certainly improved their teaching, acquired new teaching methods and diversified their testing, but on the whole, the panel did not feel that enough professors had made these changes to sustain the elearning impetus. In describing the framework of the policy followed by SVC, it is remarkable that Bologna happened at the same time but was not consequently the target of SVC. If we compare the policy of HEAD and JISC (UK) to that of SVC then it is obvious that the idea of assisting the transformation to Bologna and integrating elearning into the student lifecycle did not occur in the SVC project. There also was no change management component involved, that is to the teaching-learning organisation, as it has remained untouched. Concerning the distribution of elearning across the landscape of the curricula the answer is: the funded projects and their developed content are more like archipeligoes in the Pacific and not solid continents. Nevertheless, a number of goals underneath the country-wide level may have been achieved. 37
Page 1 and 2: Schweizerische Universitätskonfere
Page 5 and 6: experts ont retrouvé les personnes
Page 7 and 8: die Experten dann mit den Betroffen
Page 9 and 10: Rapport des évaluateurs du Campus
Page 11 and 12: sur lʼaide aux universités (LAU)
Page 13 and 14: l'enseignement en face à face, bie
Page 15 and 16: 2. Les CCSP ont été clairement co
Page 17 and 18: plupart des universités disposent
Page 19 and 20: Le Ministère autrichien a en outre
Page 21 and 22: généralement considérée comme t
Page 25 and 26: • Nach welchen Kriterien beurteil
Page 27 and 28: Die Expertengruppe stellte zudem fe
Page 29 and 30: Stossrichtung wird deutlich, dass d
Page 31 and 32: verständlich, dass die Hochschulen
Page 33 and 34: wurde eine Vertretung der Hochschul
Page 35 and 36: • E-Learning muss auch ohne Budge
Page 37 and 38: Introduction The Swiss Virtual Camp
Page 39: account the goal stated in the mult
Page 43 and 44: that SNF and CTI might be encourage
Page 45 and 46: Hochschule Bayern” in Bavaria off
Page 47 and 48: • elearning initiatives elsewhere
Page 49 and 50: Swiss Virtual Campus Consolidation
Page 51 and 52: SVC Final Evaluation. Background Re
Page 91 and 92:
SVC Final Evaluation. Background Re
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
SWISS VIRTUAL CAMPUS Postfach 607,
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
show all

Evaluation of the Swiss Virtual Campus - Schweizerische ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?