Evaluation of the Swiss Virtual Campus - Schweizerische ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SVC Final Evaluation. Background Report Lepori and Probst 4.3.1 Leading house Table 10 displays the distribution of the projects between the series and leading houses. A strong change in the distribution of the projects between the series is visible. Thus, in the 1 st and 2 nd series, the distribution was quite even and was related to the size of the different institutions; the large cantonal universities got more projects – 9 for UNIL, 8 for UZH, 6 for UNIBAS, 4 for UNIBE -, with just the exception of UNIGE; while the other institutions received 1 to 3 projects each. Project series 1 2 3 4 Total UNIBAS 4 2 3 6 15 UNIBE 2 2 1 5 EPFL 1 1 ETHZ 1 2 3 UNIFR 2 1 3 UNIGE 1 1 2 1 5 UNIL 3 5 2 2 12 UNILU 1 1 UNINE 1 1 UNISG 1 1 1 3 USI 1 5 5 11 UZH 5 4 8 7 24 BFH 4 2 1 7 FHNW 1 2 4 7 FHO 1 1 HSLU 1 1 HES-SO 1 1 2 SUPSI 1 2 5 8 ZFH 2 1 1 4 total university 20 18 23 23 84 total UAS 8 4 11 7 30 grand total 28 22 34 30 114 Table 10. Projects by leading house and series In the consolidation phase, the distribution was rather different: four institutions received 2/3 of all leading houses, namely 15 at UZH, 9 at UNIBAS, 10 at USI and 7 at SUPSI. Moreover, in the consolidation phase there has been a number of institutions which were not a leading house of projects (EPFL, UNIFR, UNILU, UNINE) or which had just a single project (UNIBE, FHO, HSLU, HES-SO, ZFH). To some extent this might have been related to the stronger role of the CCSP in the submission of 3 rd and 4 th phase, since the four institutions with many projects have also well developed CCSP (but some institutions with a established CCSP had no or few projects, like UNIFR and UNISG). Also, interviewed people clearly stated that the project selection by SVC was just based on the outcome of the evaluation from the experts (using a quantitative ranking scale), while distribution criteria were not taken into account. The share of UAS projects has been more or less the same in both phases: 24% (12 out of 59) in the 1 st and 2 nd series, 28% (18 out of 64) in the consolidation phase. In the 4 th series, however, 5 of 7 projects were lead by SUPSI. 4.3.2 Partner institutions In the consolidation phase, both funding and project size in terms of partners were reduced; in the 3 rd and especially 4 th series most projects have just the minimum number of partners required by the call (3), while large network projects as in the 1 st and 2 nd series do not exist any more. 35
SVC Final Evaluation. Background Report Lepori and Probst N. of partners/Series 1 2 3 4 Grand Total 2 2 1 1 4 3 11 7 15 21 54 4 9 9 10 6 34 5 – 9 6 5 7 2 20 Grand Total 28 22 32 30 112 Table 11. Number of university partners in the SVC projects Also the number of external partners was strongly reduced. In the 1 st and 2 nd series, about half of the projects had other partners outside higher education institutions, while this is true just for 20% of the 4 th series projects. A look at the project participation by HEI (both coordinator and partners) gives a broader view and shows that, despite the concentration of leading houses, it was possible for most institutions to get involved in a sizeable number of projects. Project series 1 2 3 4 Total UNIBAS 10 10 13 11 44 UNIBE 12 11 12 8 43 EPFL 3 4 3 3 13 ETHZ 5 7 8 6 26 UNIFR 12 6 6 1 25 UNIGE 7 8 9 9 33 UNIL 10 12 7 8 37 UNILU 0 1 0 0 1 UNINE 8 0 4 2 14 UNISG 2 1 3 2 8 UNISI 4 2 9 7 22 UZH 12 8 15 13 48 BFH 6 2 8 4 20 FHNW 5 5 8 5 23 FHO 1 3 3 2 9 HSLU 3 1 4 3 11 HES-SO 7 2 4 4 17 SUPSI 4 2 8 7 21 ZFH 3 3 5 5 16 total university 85 70 89 70 314 total UAS 29 18 40 30 117 total 114 88 129 100 431 HEI abroad 6 4 2 7 19 Others 14 10 14 4 42 Table 12: Project participation by institution and series 4.3.3 Project organisation This changing organization raises a number of interesting issues on the nature of collaboration and of the impact of these projects on Swiss higher education. In the Impulse Programme, the goal was possibly to establish large networks covering many institutions with courses on the same subject domain, to allow for pooling and large reusability of the developed materials. Clearly, 3 rd and 4 th series projects have many more small-scale networks due also to reduced funding. In most ongoing projects from all series that answered our questionnaire (67 out of 80), the leading house has a strong role – only two projects, one from the 1 st and one from the 3 rd series, denied this: in one of them, one partner plays the most important role, in the other one the 36
Page 1 and 2:
Schweizerische Universitätskonfere
Page 3 and 4:
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:
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 81: SVC Final Evaluation. Background Re
Page 123 and 124: SWISS VIRTUAL CAMPUS Postfach 607,
show all

Evaluation of the Swiss Virtual Campus - Schweizerische ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?