bbb by pengxiang

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 11

									                                           Peer Reviews


                       Jeff Haywood, University of Edinburgh
                        Konrad Morgan, University of Bergen




MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                               1
Goals of this presentation

Summarize the peer review process

Identify the critical factors we found for a successful
peer review

Describe the main E Learning issues we identified




MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                      2
Peer reviews in the MASSIVE Project

     -   six visits planned & completed
     -   time period = end March to end May 2006
     -   five at project partners, one external
     -   confidential reports produced for host institution




MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                              3
Edinburgh U, UK                  1         6 areas           Large,             KM+CD+AS
                                                             comprehensive      +PS

Barcelona U, ES                  2         3 (IPR, course    V large,           KM+IP+AT
                                           design,           comprehensive
                                           strategies)
Granada U, ES                    3         5 (omit student   V large,           KM+GG+MM
                                           support)          comprehensive

Szolnok College,                 4         4 areas (omit     Small, business,   JH+WK+DH
HU                                         IPR, design)      IT & agriculture

Erlangen-                        5         5 areas (omit     Large,             JH+PS+BA
Nuremberg U, DE                            Libraries)        comprehensive

Bergen U, NO                     6         1* (omit all but Large,              JH+DH+JC+AB
                                           Student Support) comprehensive
MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                                                           4
Analysis of lessons learned in peer visits

           worked well/challenges....

           - before visit

           - during visit

           - after visit


MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                             5
Before visit
                                          
 - description of host using               - language of documents/online
 Handbook                                  materials
 - documents/website/online                -lack of overview of organisational
 translation                               structure (who is where)
 -letter of invitation                     -being taken seriously /
 - presence of local „organiser‟           prioritisation
 - advance warning of                      - little team liaison / pre-meet
 visit/planning
 -advice on local key issues to
 explore
 - selection of study areas

MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                                             6
During visit
                                          
 - localcontact – “organiser”              - local contact – “not neutral”
 - informality / goodwill                  - language / translation
 - single venue for meetings               - lack clarity of purpose for
 - comprehensive timetable /               interviewees (project/service)
 coverage                                  - >1 venue / travelling
 - observation / visits                    - timetable / energy / lack of
 - shared questioning                      reflection
 - comfort with external review            - hierarchy / sensitivities
                                           - lack of experience of review


MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                                             7
After visit - verbal feedback session @ end every visit
 - deadline for report promise vs time available
      * broadbrush vs comprehensive report
      * team consultations vs leader draft
      * league table vs standalone report
      * frank vs diplomatic language
      * bespoke vs standardised report
      * freetext vs template report
  - report could be: public domain vs private to U vs private to all
    interviewees vs later release report
Effectively we ended up with two sets of reports - one internal to the
project and one for the host institution

MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                                         8
Conclusions from peer visits on methodology
     - methodology works well overall
     - need to refine instructions to university re visit „success factors‟
     - need to refine guidance to interviewees re purpose & process
     - visits rely a lot on tacit knowledge of interview teams
     - so should share varied good practice of interview teams
     - clarify for reporting – type, purpose, deadline, availability,
           structure, specificity




MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                                              9
Findings – no attributions to specific host
  - lot of e-learning in use across each institution – more than it is aware of?
  - innovation local & plentiful – funded internal & external - creativity
  - (most, probably all) senior staff aware of issue even if no clear strategic plan
  - those U‟s that are „advanced‟ in eL have serious issues to resolve, but diff to
      those at earlier stage
  - major impact of legal and funding regimes
  - not all major „units‟ in host wished to be peer reviewed in this area – “politics”
  - IPR unresolved issue for all
  - staff development/awareness/training – tech/pedagog
  - too little account of changing students‟ – views, skills, practice, exposure to eL
  - commercialisation with open/on-campus e-learning
  - centralised vs devolved “power & responsibility for e-learning”
  - innovation vs standardised systems

 MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                                                   10
Summary - we have
              Summarized the peer review process

              Identified the critical factors we found for a
              successful peer review

              Described the main E Learning issues we
              identified




MASSIVE Seminar Brussels March 12th 2007
                                                               11

								
To top