Handout from - University of Leicester

advertisement
______________________________________________________________________
Handout from Profs. John Fothergill, Gilly Salmon & Jaideep Mukherjee University of Leicester
1.
2.
Original rationale:

substantial internal consultation and self-reflection to inform future
planning

review of early stages of new e-learning strategy and ways of
measuring progress in the future

ideas for developing new e-learning programmes

opportunity to contribute to and learn from other institutions
Modifications to the rationale in the light of experience?
We were disappointed that no information has been shared with the
three other Universities in our group or between the eleven other
institutions involved in the pilot.
3.
4.
Anticipated scope of the e-benchmarking activity, e.g. institution,
faculty, department:

Whole institution plus selected slices which included

Distance and blended learning provision

Development of new missions and markets

The three CETL-s awarded to the University of Leicester and its
partners

The Leicester contribution to the Leicester-Warwick Medical Schools
and to the UK Health Education Partnership
Actual scope of the e-benchmarking activity and why?

Whole institution

plus selected slices which included:

Distance Learning provision (almost all of Leicester’s provision
could now be considered ‘blended’ )

Development of new missions and markets

The three CETLs awarded to the University of Leicester and its
partners

The Leicester contribution to the Leicester-Warwick Medical
Schools
______________________________________________________________________
HEA e-Learning Benchmarking Pilot Internal Dissemination Workshop
Wed 21 June 2006
Page 1 of 4
______________________________________________________________________
5.
Who was involved and what was their role?
Person
Title
Prof Gilly Salmon
Jaideep Mukherjee
PVC Learning &
Teaching
Prof of E-learning
RA in e-learning
David Christmas
Director of DL Admin
Richard Taylor
Director of Marketing
Prof John Fothergill
Dr Richard Mobbs
Michael Corin
Dr Annette Cashmore
Dr Matthew Higgins
Prof Rachel Gibson
Roger Dickinson
Dr Joanne Badge
Dr Hazel Derbyshire
6.
Head of Learning
technologies
Deputy University
Secretary
GENIE (CETL director)
Deputy Director of DL,
UoL, Management Sch.
Professor of New Media
Director, DL, UoL
Department of Media and
Communications
Web Resources
Development Officer
Manager of eLearning for
the Leicester Warwick
Medical Schools
Role
Chair Steering Group
Project Director
Project Manager
Steering Group &
Project Team
Steering Group &
Project Team
Project Team
Project Team
Project Team
Steering Group &
Project Team
Steering Group &
Project Team
Contributor to ‘Slices’
project
Contributor to ‘Slices’
project
Contributor to ‘Slices’
project
Affordances from taking part in the e-benchmarking exercise?

Welcomed by e-learning sub-committee and departments as an
appropriate review towards the end of the first year of implementation
of a new e-learning strategy

Reports to go forward to a wide variety of formal committees and
informal meetings in the autumn term for discussion

Identified strengths and weaknesses not previously surfaced and
articulated

Provided vehicle for ongoing discussion around a wide variety of elearning issues

Identified increasing and deepening needs to take account of the
development of e-learning in the University’s strategic discussions
______________________________________________________________________
HEA e-Learning Benchmarking Pilot Internal Dissemination Workshop
Wed 21 June 2006
Page 2 of 4
______________________________________________________________________
7.
Constraints, institutional reactions, unexpected issues?

The exercise was one of internal benchmarking, we had no
opportunity to explore findings with others

Despite high level of commitment, difficult to get senior people
together – often individual meetings were needed

Evidence collection took place during AUT industrial action – some
people’s priorities were different of course, however, we did achieve
all that was needed in the end
8.
Would you do anything differently if you were to start again?

We would establish a benchmarking club and ways of working with
others from the very beginning.

We would establish more ways of negotiating criteria that were
relevant to a research-led highly autonomous university
9.
On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best) rate your experience of ebenchmarking – why?
8 – mainly good if demanding experience, fantastic to get so many
people at different levels to focus on e-learning issues, so process has
been ‘everything’ with benchmarking as a vehicle.
10. On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being best) rate the e-benchmarking
tools you used – why?
6 – as a pilot the Pick and Mix approach was satisfactory.
We would have preferred:

Ways of changing the very embedded values in the criteria; there is
more than one way of achieving progress and success in most of the
benchmarked areas

Ways of taking it beyond internal opinions and outside - to compare
and contrast and learn more from others
______________________________________________________________________
HEA e-Learning Benchmarking Pilot Internal Dissemination Workshop
Wed 21 June 2006
Page 3 of 4
______________________________________________________________________
11. What next?

We would like to share results and processes with other pilot
benchmark institutions

ADELIE pathfinder project: benchmarking surfaced two key
challenges for Leicester: designing for e-learning and teaching online
through student activities. Our pathfinder bid addresses these

We will run a mini benchmarking exercise at the end of our pathfinder
as part of year-two in the implementation of our e-learning strategy
12. Lessons for e-benchmarking phase 1 institutions and the wider
sector?
It is essential that future exercises enable institutions to share
information, compare themselves with each other and discuss ways
forward: benchmarking is of less value when the benchmarks are a set of
theoretical constructs and not calibrated or shared; it is best when
experiences are shared openly, in a spirit of cooperation.
______________________________________________________________________
HEA e-Learning Benchmarking Pilot Internal Dissemination Workshop
Wed 21 June 2006
Page 4 of 4
Download