Evaluation of the Swiss Virtual Campus - Schweizerische ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SVC Final Evaluation. Background Report Lepori and Probst size of the centres since for some institutions it might be that a critical mass for offering different services and ensuring continuity (for example if the CCSP leader leaves) is not attained. From this perspective, our opinion is that some of the small and more decentralised structures are still rather fragile and depend on the person of the coordination itself and thus consolidation will be required in the next years. 3.4 Resources and SVC funding As already introduced, CCSPs have been funded by the SVC programme through two different mechanisms: • A basic funding composed, for universities, of a basic allowance of CHF 100,000 per year, plus a variable allowance in proportion to the number of students and teachers. UAS had similar rules, but because of limitation in funds from the OPET, the amounts have been subsequently reduced and in 2007 were just half of the amount of the years 2004 and 2005. • An overhead for the production of didactical materials in the new SVC projects. In the 3 rd call, the CCSP of the leading house received 100,000 CHF (universities) and 50,000 CHF (UAS); in the 4 th call this amount was reduced to 50,000 CHF (universities) and 33,000 CHF (UAS). The analysis shows that there have been significant differences in the level of funding between CCSPs. The high basic allowance had the result that small universities were favoured in the repartition of basic funding: thus, if measured per teacher, small universities like USI, UNINE, UNILU and UNISG received about double the resources per student than the largest ones. This was motivated by the need to give a basic level of resources to set-up the centre to all higher education institutions. The repartition of the overheads was extremely skewed since the lead of most of the new projects was concentrated on just a few institutions. Overall, about 2/3 of the whole amount distributed as overhead was received by the two support centres of UZH and USI-SUPSI. Consequently, these two centres clearly stand out for the amount of total money received. While for Zurich, this corresponds also to the number of teachers in the university, the eLab USI- SUPSI received a very high level of funding if compared with the total number of academic staff. 3'000'000 2'500'000 2'000'000 1'500'000 1'000'000 500'000 0 UNIBAS Overhead Base funding UNIBE UNIFR UNIGE UNIL UNILU Figure 3. CCSP funding 2004-2007 (CHF) Source: SVC data. UNINE UNISG 25 UZH USI SUPSI BFH FHNW FHO HSLU HES-SO ZFH
SVC Final Evaluation. Background Report Lepori and Probst 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 UNIBAS UNIBE UNIFR UNIGE UNIL Figure 4. CCSP funding 2004-2007 (CHF per FTE of teachers) UNILU UNINE Source: SVC data and data from the Swiss federal statistical office (FTE for 2006). Personnel categories: professors and other teachers. UNISG If we put this in a larger perspective, the role of SVC funding was relatively limited for the larger Swiss HEIs: CCSPs like those in Basel, Lausanne and Zurich have a yearly budget exceeding 1 mio. CHF. Thus amounts in the order of 200,000–300,000 CHF per year – the funding received by the large universities from SVC – allowed the financing of some additional positions, but did not constitute the majority of funding of the whole CCSP. On the contrary, SVC funding was essential as seed money for the institutions which did not have a CCSP at the beginning of the consolidation phase, since for example it allowed the funding of a coordinator who then developed the whole structure; federal funding was also quite important in proportion for USI- SUPSI and for UNIFR, whose centre also hosted the Edutech mandate. The interviews showed that the end of federal funding will not raise major problems where the CCSP has been well established: in all these cases, the institutions have guaranteed the funds for the next years and most of the CCSP employees have been integrated in the permanent staff of the university. Some of the respondents clearly stated that, also for developing internal projects, money will not be a major problem if the applications of elearning are clearly useful to education. Also, there was a fairly shared view that for the development of elearning inside the universities there will be, in the future, no major need for external funding schemes like SVC projects: many universities have introduced their own small-scale scheme for seed money for projects; this seems to be a preferred way. However, some of the respondents indicated that if there is need and will to have broader elearning cooperation at national level in some specific domains, national funding would be required; it was also pointed out that some instruments already exist, like SUC cooperation projects and European projects (see chapter five for additional information). The situation concerning funding is much more difficult where the CCSP has not been established and supported actively by the rectorate, since CCSP leaders had to ask for money to replace SVC funding and had much larger difficulties; some decisions have been taken just in time for the end of federal funding (like at UNIBE), while in a few other cases the rectorate has yet to decide and there is a risk that the activities will be discontinued during 2008. In these 26 UZH USI SUPSI BFH FHNW FHO HSLU HES-SO ZFH
Page 1 and 2:
Schweizerische Universitätskonfere
Page 3 and 4:
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 23 and 24: Schweizerische Universitätskonfere
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 and 40: account the goal stated in the mult
Page 41 and 42: how sustainable the initiative woul
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 71: SVC Final Evaluation. Background Re
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?