Evaluation of the Swiss Virtual Campus - Schweizerische ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SVC Final Evaluation. Background Report Lepori and Probst partners no longer interested retirement of key people missing integration financial reasons Figure 13. Risk factors N = 79 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% very likely likely moderately likely not likely In our sample, the risk of a close-down created by financial reasons is perceived most seriously by the 2 nd series projects (7 out of 10 see it as very likely, 1 as likely), while it is estimated lowest by the 1 st series projects (1 out of 14 very likely, 3 likely). In the 3 rd and 4 th series (both maintenance and production), around half of the projects sees this possibility as very likely or likely. Also the retirement of key people is perceived as the most serious risk factor by 2 nd series projects (3 out of 10 very likely, 4 likely). This risk is perceived lowest by the 1 st (4 out of 14 likely/very likely) and 4 th series (8 out of 28). 11 out of the 19 projects stating that retirement of key people is not likely to be a factor for closing down the project are from the 4 th series. 4.6 Final appreciation The picture given by the respondents of our questionnaire looks, overall, very positive. Most projects are used in regular activities, even if they have been developed some years ago, and are expected to continue to be used. Collaboration with the CCSP is generally appreciated – even if there are some cases where this collaboration does not exist or is rather limited. This impression of varying degrees of collaboration was also perceived during the monitoring visits. There are projects that have developed their own technical and didactical competences, while in other cases the development of projects is done in very close interaction with the CCSP – in extreme cases, the project leader is part of (or leader of) the CCSP. Even if this was not directly a topic of the evaluation, one should also consider that a significant number of SVC projects won international prizes and awards, including two winners of the MEDIDA Prix (2003 and 2006) and many participated in the final round of prizes like MEDIDA Prix, Multimedia Transfer and EASA award. The results from the questionnaires do not show many differences between projects in the production and those in the maintenance phase. One difference that emerged was that maintenance projects were used more often as – mandatory or optional – standalone courses than those still in the production phase; this might be related to the larger size of 1 st and 2 nd series projects. It emerged in several monitoring visits that collaboration in large teams is a rather big challenge – but, however, more than 4/5 of the projects sees the network and collaborations as a significant added value in the project. In several cases, collaboration also goes beyond the SVC project. The lower number of project partners requested in the 3 rd and 4 th series, though, does 45
SVC Final Evaluation. Background Report Lepori and Probst not seem to have an impact on the evaluation of collaboration. Our supposition is that projects from the impulse phase have automatically reduced real collaboration to a few partners, and thus are, in this respect, more similar to the consolidation phase projects. Regarding learning management systems, the national content server is not used by many projects. During the monitoring visits, several times a certain degree of discontent emerged regarding the lack of a clear policy – projects state that they never knew about the future of the national content server, and some also expressed their disappointment regarding the fact that they are now suddenly required to pay fees for every student using this LMS. Overall, most projects use the LMS provided by their CCSP or an open source system. Overall, the projects themselves evaluate their future sustainability rather positively. The monitoring visits, however, gave the impression of very different types of projects regarding their commitment and proactivity. Some projects already have clear ideas about how the future needs will be covered – for example by selling the course in continuous education, by employing assistants who, instead of other tasks, are responsible for maintenance and updating – or see it as part of their day to day work to continue to update and develop the projects (as they would do for traditional teaching as well), while other projects have less definite perspectives: they underline that they think it is a pity that SVC does not continue, that they will not have the resources for updating and development, that their project probably will get lost. Thus, it seems that some projects have become a really integrated part of the professors’ teaching portfolio, while at the other extreme there are cases rather like independent projects that will be concluded at a certain moment in time and not integrated in the normal, day-to-day teaching/working/research process. These results show that fears that most SVC projects will stop with the end of federal funding are not justified; but it is also not possible to say much about how effective was the use of money and if the relationship between funding volume and output has been correct. The opinion of most people interviewed in the rectorates and in CCSP was that especially the 1 st and 2 nd series projects were too strongly focused on high-level products and complex technology; these projects seem to have found their way to a use in face-to-face teaching, but most respondents agreed that there was little relationship between the uses and their funding volume. In this respect, the decision of going towards smaller projects in the Consolidation Programme is seen by most people as very correct. In fact, some HEIs stated that they went a step further in this direction, by funding even smaller projects and giving seed money to professors for some innovative activities. 46
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 91: SVC Final Evaluation. Background Re
Page 123 and 124: SWISS VIRTUAL CAMPUS Postfach 607,
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?