Better quality of eLearning in Universities –E-xcellence · 2010-02-09 · 2008 2009 Month o n d j f m a m j j a s o n d j f m a m j j a s WP1 Leader: EADTU WP2 Leader: EADTU WP3

Better quality of eLearning in Universities – E-xcellence

Pekka KessOulun yliopistoTuotantotalouden osasto

COURSE: MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION ORGANISATIONS

Research and Teaching Integration

Teac

hing

Teac

hing

Cou

rse

mat

eria

lsC

ours

e m

ater

ials

Pub

licat

ions

Publ

icat

ions

Doc

tora

lD

isse

rtatio

nsD

octo

ral

Dis

serta

tions

Org

anis

atio

nsO

rgan

isat

ions

Course delivery Year n(i)

Course delivery Year n(i+1)



ConferencePapers

ConferencePapers

JournalArticles

CompaniesPublic

organisations

CompaniesPublic

organisations

CompaniesPublic

organisations

Human capital

assessment

Managementsystemanalysis

Outsourcing:External knowledge

management

E-xcellence+ - background

• Total Quality Management– Leadership– People Management– Customer focus– Use of information and analysis– Process Improvement– Strategic and quality planning

Samson D & Terziovski M (1999): The relationship between total quality Management practices and operational performance

Why eLearning in Finland

FLEXIBILITY in learning processes

QUALITY in learning processes

Serving OFF-CAMPUS students

DROP-OUT reduction

COST reduction

(Chirichilli, 2006)

Academic Strategy Map

UniversityStrategy

University Strategy onICT in

education

Research Strategy

Strategy on International

Issues

FVUstrategy

University ofHelsinki

University of Turku

University of Tampere

University ofJyväskyläTechnical University

Of TampereHelsinkiUniversity oftechnology

Helsinki BusinessSchoolTurku

Business SchoolHelsinki Univ.Of TechnologySwedish

BusinessSchool

ÅboAcademySibelius

Academy

Arts Academy

NorthernFinlandStrategy

Oulu ProvinceCulturalStrategy

NorthernFinland

HEStrategy

City of OuluStrategy

IT Strategy

LibraryStrategy

NationalInfo Society

Strategy

Min. Educ.Info Society

Strategy

HR strategy

Dept strategy onICT in EducationDept strategy on

ICT in EducationDept strategy onICT in EducationDept strategy on

ICT in Education

Strategic Capability of Some Organisations

JOHTAMISJÄRJESTELMÄN KYPSYYSASTE

0 20 40 60 80 100

JOHTAMISJÄRJESTELMÄN KYPSYYS

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Best in Class from

the ICT Industry

Finnish Quality Award Winner

(Oiva, 2007)

University #2

University #1

People ManagementP-CMM -KONSTRUKTION JOHDETTU TASO 2: IHMISTEN JOHTAMINEN

0 20 40 60 80 100


ORGANISAATIO 18

ORGANISAATIO 17

ORGANISAATIO 16

ORGANISAATIO 15

ORGANISAATIO 14

ORGANISAATIO 13

ORGANISAATIO 12

ORGANISAATIO 11

ORGANISAATIO 19

ORGANISAATIO 10

ORGANISAATIO 9

ORGANISAATIO 8

ORGANISAATIO 7

ORGANISAATIO 6

ORGANISAATIO 5

ORGANISAATIO 4

ORGANISAATIO 3

ORGANISAATIO 2

ORGANISAATIO 1

(Oiva, 2007)

Competency Management

P-CMM -KONSTRUKTION MÄÄRITELTY TASO 3: KOMPETENSSIEN JOHTAMINEN

0 20 40 60 80 100


ORGANISAATIO 18

ORGANISAATIO 17

ORGANISAATIO 16

ORGANISAATIO 15

ORGANISAATIO 14

ORGANISAATIO 13

ORGANISAATIO 12

ORGANISAATIO 11

ORGANISAATIO 19

ORGANISAATIO 10

ORGANISAATIO 9

ORGANISAATIO 8

ORGANISAATIO 7

ORGANISAATIO 6

ORGANISAATIO 5

ORGANISAATIO 4

ORGANISAATIO 3

ORGANISAATIO 2

ORGANISAATIO 1

(Oiva, 2007)

Change Management

P-CMM -KONSTRUKTION OPTIMOITU TASO 5: MUUTOKSEN JOHTAMINEN

0 20 40 60 80 100


ORGANISAATIO 18

ORGANISAATIO 17

ORGANISAATIO 16

ORGANISAATIO 15

ORGANISAATIO 14

ORGANISAATIO 13

ORGANISAATIO 12

ORGANISAATIO 11

ORGANISAATIO 19

ORGANISAATIO 10

ORGANISAATIO 9

ORGANISAATIO 8

ORGANISAATIO 7

ORGANISAATIO 6

ORGANISAATIO 5

ORGANISAATIO 4

ORGANISAATIO 3

ORGANISAATIO 2

ORGANISAATIO 1

(Oiva, 2007)

E-xcellence+• Metodi• Työkalu• Benchmarks• Assessment

Johtaminen

Prosessit

Opetuksen tuotteet

ProjektiorganisaatiotNL EADTUFI OULU-UniversityNL OUNLUK OUUKIT UNINETTUNONL NVAOEE Tallinn UniversityHU Hungarian e-University NetworkSE NSHUES Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED)BE KU-LeuvenCZ Cztech Association of Distance Teaching UniversitiesCZ University of Hradec KrálovéSK Slovak University of Technology in BratislavaRU MesiCH Fern Schweiz

Projektin tavoitteetWith E-xcellence+ we want to valorise the instrument at the local, national and European level for the higher education and adult education sectors. Further, within E-xcellence +, we want to broaden the implementation and receive feedback for enhancing the instrument.

Projektin kohderyhmätYliopistot / aikuiskoulutus

OpettajatKoulutuksen suunnittelijatKoulutuksen sisällön tuottajatKoulutuksen johtoKoulutuksen tukipalvelujen tuottajat

Akreditointiorganisaatiot

Projektin ositusWP1:General project managementWP2: Promotion and awareness raisingWP3: Institutional frameworksWP4: ImplementationWP5: SustainabilityWP6: Quality and evaluation planWP7: Dissemination

Aikataulu

Planning

2007

2008

2009

Month o n d j f m a m j j a s o n d j f m a m j j a s WP1 Leader: EADTU

WP2 Leader: EADTU

WP3 Leader: OUUK

WP4 Leader: OUNL

WP5 Leader: OULU

WP6 Leader: EADTU

WP7 Leader: EADTU

Projektin tuloksia• 2008 version of the E-xcellence+ manual• 2008 version of the E-xcellence+ tool• 2009 version of the E-xcellence+ manual• 2009 version of the E-xcellence+ tool• “Quality system” for the E-xcellence+ expert

network• ”Quality Label”

WP

4W

P 3

WP

5W

P 7

WP

2

Planning

Manual& toll2008

version

2008conf

2009conf

Updating manual & tool Updating manual & toolManual& toll2009

version

Expert network QS planning, design, testing

ExpertNetworkLaunch

MadridMeeting12-13.6.

Trainingmaterials

Nationalworkshops

#1 Full Assessment OUNL

#2Full Assessment OUUK

#3 Full Assessment xxx

E-xcellence+ Quality Manual

• 6 sections:– Management, Curriculum Design, Course Design,

Course Delivery, Staff Support, Student Support, plus Introduction and Glossary.

• Each section comprising:– Benchmarks, Critical Factors (including performance

indicators), Assessors Notes

• Web pages and .pdf files • Attempts to work within existing QA frameworks

rather than re-inventing them

The E-xcellence+ manual

Esittäjä

Esityksen muistiinpanot

100- page document. Coverage of the manual is reasonably comprehensive from strategic planning for e-learning developments at institutional level through the design of e-learning curricula and course elements to the support for students and teachers in e-learning situations. We’ve included a glossary of the more specialised terms used following feedback from the pilots that there was scope for mis-interpretation without it. Each section has a set of benchmarks (33 in total across all six sections), critical factors and assessors notes. The benchmarks comprise a set of general quality statements designed to cover a wide range of contexts in which programme designers and others work. It is intended that the benchmarks will be relevant to virtually all e-learning situations at HE level. The benchmarks themselves might usefully form the basis for institutions’ quality self-assessment where the full range of criteria and performance indicators are not judged to be relevant to the context (eg in situations where e-learning developments are confined to a minority of courses or to specialist areas of the institution’s work.) The critical factors and performance indicators which follow then focus on particular topics relevant to the benchmark statements and develop the parameters of quality in respect of each. Not all the critical factors will be relevant in all situations, and several will be seen to cut across more than one benchmark statement (and vice versa). Thus there is no one-to-one relationship between the benchmarks and the critical factors because they are pitched at different levels of analysis. Performance indicators tied to the critical factors are then offered at both general and excellence levels. The Assessors notes then provide a more detailed and discursive account of the issues surrounding each critical factor and the various approaches which might be taken to meet quality requirements in each situation. The intention is therefore that the manual can be used at several different levels ranging from a general and quick assessment tool based on compliance with the benchmark statements through to an in-depth analysis taking into account relevant critical factors and performance indicators and using the assessors’ notes as a good-practice guide. The Manual is NOT about re-inventing the frameworks for QA to fit e-learning. We pondered over whether to include a separate (seventh) section covering monitoring and evaluation in an e-learning context. We decided against such an approach because it would be a repetition of much standard QA protocol with which we are all familiar through institutional practice, national QA bodies etc. There is also the danger that a QA section would be seen as sufficient in itself for assessing quality in an e-learning context when the real trick is to ensure that e-learning developments are integrated into existing systems for audit and assessment, not seen as something separate. One of the characteristics of an e-learning environment is the sheer amount of monitoring information which may be made available relative to more traditional methods of learning. Most e-learning platforms provide for an extensive level of monitoring and feedback, and student learning behaviour is usually more easily tracked and recorded in an e-learning context than in a traditional classroom. Also, external reviewers are able to gain access to the full range of course materials and to sample the delivery of the programme directly. This has obvious advantages for evaluation but also certain potential disadvantages associated with the sheer volume of data and opinion available. It is hoped that by focussing on specific benchmarks and criteria, institutions will be able to develop performance indicators which are fit for purpose in their own context.

The purpose of the actions in connections to the onsite assessment:

– Testing the E-xcellence+ model for Quality in eLearning in higher education

– Evaluate the institute/program/course using the E-xcellence+ method and tool.

Purpose of the on site assessment

• Manual is open for further improvements • National (European) standard in quality criteria

is good for – students, teachers, funding organisations

• Questions will be further tuned in practice to fit to various expert areas

• Process is challenging – takes time and effort: Scheduling the process is critical

• Site visit asks for several types of expertise and so does the self assessment: how to organise the self assessment with the tool so that all experts will take part in the best possible way..

Tool / Process Analysis

http://www.eadtu.nl/e-xcellenceqs/

E-xcellence+ SuomessaKäydään 2008-2009 läpi joukko avoimia yliopistoja ja tehdään eX

työkalulla arviointi joihinkin opintokokonaisuuksiin – asiantuntjia/vertaisarviointi

Tuloksena saadaan kansallisesti:• joukko kuvauksia good/best pract käytönnöistä• suuri joukko yhdessä kehitettäviä asioita• joukko asiansa osaavia asessoreja• muutamia tieteellisiä julkaisuja aiheesta• hyvät päivitykset eX käsikirjaan ja työkalustoon• takaisin asema Euroopan edistyksellisenä eOpen Univ

organisaationa• yms mukavaa ja tuskaahttps//www.iem.oulu.fi/ .... -sivusto projektin intranetiksi

A GOODUNDERSTANDINGOF THE METHODAND TOOL

SELF ASSESSMENT USING THE TOOL

SITE VISIT- SELF ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS- INTERVIEWS- CONCLUSIONS

ACTION PLANNING

On site assessment

E-xcellence+ -projektin ja omasta puolesta

KIITOKSET

Pekka Kess – [email protected] yliopistoTuotantotalouden osastowww.ICPQR2008.org

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Better quality of eLearning in Universities –E-xcellence · 2010-02-09 · 2008 2009 Month o n d j f m a m j j a s o n d j f m a m j j a s WP1 Leader: EADTU WP2 Leader: EADTU WP3