The focus is now on monitoring and learning. Main challenges: To foster interregional and international cooperation.
trial and error and rapid learning that are accompanying the birth of this new economy. But we can be certain that its emergence will encourage ever more interest in how innovation can best be supported,
and should evolve through shared learning. Social innovations often struggle against the odds all of our chances of success will increase
PRA uses a range of visualisation techniques such as mapping as a tool for learning about sexual health and reproduction,
An outstanding recent example is New zealand academic John Hattie's work on schools,‘Visible Learning, 'which brings together 800 meta-analyses of
Feedback loops are a necessary precondition for learning, reviewing and improving. This could include front line service research to tap into the expertise of practitioners and front line staff
Examples include the idea of disability rights, closedloop manufacturing, zero-carbon housing or lifelong learning.
personalised learning in schools and self-managed healthcare, and are likely to be critical to future productivity gains in public services. 11 24) Changing roles.
CARE. 7. Hattie, J. 2008)‘ Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.'
Nooteboom, B. 2000)‘ Learning and Innovation in Organisations and Economies.''Oxford: Oxford university Press. 12. Laderman Ukeles, M. 2001) On Maintenance and Sanitation Art.
and the role of the prison officer around an intensive learning programme. 1 39) Engagement of ex-users The Arizona Department of Corrections has involved recent prisoners in designing programmes to help others reintegrate into society
they make sculptures using A Learning Prison. The prison is divided up into houses (the image above is a cross section) with cells on the top three floors, a communal space on the ground floor,
and a learning centre in the basement. Image courtesy of Hilary Cottam, Buschow Henley, Do Tank Ltd. 2 participants'bodies to portray events and personal experiences.
but now cover topics as diverse as marketing and healthcare. 76) Participatory workshops are also known as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) or Participatory Learning and Action (PLA).
2002)‘ Learning Works: The 21st Century Prison.''London: Do Tank Ltd. 2. See Boal, A. 1979)‘ Theatre of the Oppressed.'
the idea being that faster implementation would speed up learning. This idea has now 3 spread into service prototyping
and learning because of the need to freeze the model to allow for formal evaluation. 88) Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTS) test a procedure within a randomly chosen sample of the public.
The combination of social learning and technological advancement that open testing demonstrates has many applications in encouraging sustainable and systemic innovation that is both supply and demand driven.
listening, and learning. Management is not only about the 4 70 THE OPEN BOOK OF SOCIAL INNOVATION giving of orders
and promoted fast learning. 165) Endorsement by regulators for example, the impact of NICE in increasing the pressure on healthcare commissioners to take up more cost effective methods,
SCALING AND DIFFUSION 89 through a series of events and learning visits. 168) Global diffusion and encouragement, for example through GBUPA, the World bank's Global Programme on Output-Based Aid,
Everdale is an organic farm and environmental learning centre. Its purpose is to teach sustainable living practices,
and adaptation and learning processes are required for the generative diffusion of innovation. The NHS‘Adapt
and identify new solutions to problems through increased effectiveness, expertise, knowledge transfer, and learning. Collaboration can help institutions work better
The package includes a‘Best Practice Guide'made up of Quality Standards and Learning Resources.
These generally provide a much more objective measure of social dynamics than the indicators chosen by individual organisations to prove their impact. 229) Assessment as learning,
including peer reviews and real time evaluation methods to promote cross-pollination such as NESTA's evaluation of Health Launchpad. 5 106 THE OPEN BOOK OF SOCIAL INNOVATION End notes 1. See for example,
or learning according to fundamentally different principles. These invariably involve many different elements. Systemic innovation is very different from innovation in products or services.
and implementation of the programme, served as a process for community learning. The project has acted as a major demonstration programme for national and international applications. 251) Support for new patterns of power and responsibility,
and Bed Zed in the UK. 254) Designing and trialling platforms to trigger systemic innovation including peer-to-peer models such as the School of Everything and digital learning environments such as colleges in second life. 255) Comprehensive pilots,
and a 6 SYSTEMIC CHANGE 121 series of learning events. 272) Organising formal coalitions for change with explicit goals,
600 people gathered outside the power station the UK's biggest single source of carbon dioxide-for ten days of learning and sustainable living,
promote and disseminate learning and best practice. These are promoted sometimes strongly by funders for example, the European commission's sustainable urban development network URBACT and the EQUAL Programme. 126 THE OPEN BOOK OF SOCIAL INNOVATION Championing innovation Individual roles can be created to scout out,
allow fast learning across a community of innovators; and establish clear pathways for scaling up the most promising models.
social entrepreneurs, nonprofit organisation managers and others. 296) Innovation learning labs. There are now a range of innovation learning labs within universities.
promoting learning and collaboration across This is the winning team from 2009's Social Innovation Camp.
which is based on theories of learning in action‘learning while doing'.'They have proved an effective tool for practitioners in local government in the UK,
and social entrepreneurship. 305) Action learning sets are groups of between four and seven people who come together on a regular basis to reflect on their work,
where students are divided into action learning sets for the duration of the one year course. 306) Membership organisations like the Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) in the UK
The flow of information from the periphery to the centre is critical for learning, reviewing and improving.
groups and mobilising ex-offenders in service design (see method 38). 321) Learning cultures. The biggest barrier to innovation is the lack of a culture of learning that rewards public agencies and public servants for learning from their own mistakes learning from other sectors,
and learning from other places. One feature of the most innovative public agencies is that they are comfortable adopting ideas from diverse and surprising sources. 322) Safe spaces for innovation.
Examples include The 27e Region in France. There are 26 administrative regions in France. This virtual 27th‘region'is intended to provide the other regions with the space
including Milano Graduate school, University of West indies, and the Hong kong Polytechnic University. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Innovations in American Government Awards.
so that individuals can be transferred from failures to successes. 398) Accreditation, search and recruitment of public innovators by commercial headhunters or government agencies.
and collaborative learning. The idea has spread and there are now Room 13 studios in Mexico, Nepal, Austria, South africa, USA, Turkey, Holland, China, and Canada.
Here, Uprisers are taking part in a learning session at the Roffey Park Leadership Retreat.
The learning programme is based on‘learning through doing 'and peer-learning. 487) Mutual support networks such as Community Action Network (CAN) which promotes social entrepreneurship
Issues such as the distribution of working time, the valorisation of voluntary labour, the content and channels of life skills learning, the role of many of the social and educational services, the arrangements for retirement and unemployment, the size
For example, there is now a Health Information Accreditation Scheme in the UK which gives kite marks to organisations that produce information and moderate websites and forums.
asthma networks, homework clubs, or gardening groups as well as citizens engaging in formal activities through volunteering.
In 2008, campers converged on Kingsnorth power station for a week of learning, sustainable living and climate action.
albeit not always harmonious coexistence of tacit and codified knowledge and is translated in different modes of learning and innovation, e g. the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) mode, based on the production and use of codified scientific and technical knowledge,
p=1546&t=h401&l=en. 27 6. RELEVANCE OF TRIPLE HELIX SYSTEMS FOR KNOWLEDGE-BASED REGIONAL INNOVATION STRATEGIES Regional innovation policies have focused traditionally on the promotion of localized learning processes
and economic growth in evolutionary systems where institutions and learning processes are of central importance (Freeman, 1987,1988;
and localised learning (Lundvall, 1992), but became increasingly blurred due to business and technology internationalisation extending technological capabilities beyond national borders,
a set of regional actors aiming to reinforce regional innovation capability and competitiveness through technological learning (Doloreux and Parto, 2005),
Localized Learning and industrial Competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23,167-185. Mason, C. and Harrison, R. 1992.
which is a typical starting point in many of the related approaches, such as learning regions or innovative milieus.
technical and vocational qualifications are often more important with this respect (Gray, 2006). Over 58 percent of the entrepreneurs participating in this study had not been educated beyond elementary school.
Antonelli, C. and Que're',M. 2002), The governance of interactive learning within innovation systems, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 Nos 5-6, pp. 1051-63.
a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52.
Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter, London. Macpherson, A. and Holt, R. 2007), Knowledge, learning and small firm growth:
a systematic review of the evidence, Research Policy, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 172-92.
Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. 2006), Localized learning revisited, Growth and Change, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Appropriateness of knowledge accumulation across growth studies, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 105-23.
Tidd, J.,Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. 2002), Learning through alliances, in Henry, J. and Mayle, D. Eds), Managing Innovation and Change, 2nd ed.,Sage
49 3. 1 Introduction 49 3. 2 Stakeholders'involvement 49 3. 3 Overview of indicators 52 Teaching and learning 52 3. 3
questionnaire 89 Student survey 90 4. 3. 2 Pretesting the instruments 91 4. 3. 3 Supporting instruments 94 4. 3. 4 4. 4 A concluding
119 6. 1 Introduction 119 6. 2 Feasibility of indicators 119 Teaching & Learning 122 6. 2. 1 Research 124 6. 2
Feasibility of data collection 133 Self-reported institutional data 133 6. 3. 1 Student survey data 135 6. 3. 2 Bibliometric
Indicators for the dimension Teaching & Learning in the Focused Institutional and Field-based Rankings...
Teaching & Learning...122 Table 6-2: Field-based ranking indicators: Teaching & Learning (departmental questionnaires...
123 Table 6-3: Field-based ranking indicators: Teaching & Learning (student satisfaction scores...124 Table 6-4:
Focused institutional ranking indicators: Research...125 Table 6-5: Field-based ranking indicators: Research...126 Table 6-6:
While indicators on teaching and learning, research, and internationalisation proved largely unproblematic, in some dimensions (particularly knowledge transfer
The conceptual frameworks behind sports league tables are accepted usually well: rules of the game define who the winner is
of being guided by a (nonexistent) theory of the quality of higher education. We do not accept that position.
although the current transparency tools especially university league tables are controversial, they seem to be here to stay,
and that especially global university league tables have a great impact on decision-makers at all levels in all countries,
especially in the research universities that are the main subjects of the current global league tables.
Yet major concerns remain as to league tables'methodological underpinnings and to their policy impact on stratification rather than on diversification of mission.
Quality assurance, evaluation or accreditation, also produces information to stakeholders (review reports, accreditation status) and in that sense helps to achieve transparency.
As the information function of quality assurance is not very elaborate (usually only informing if basic quality,
e g. the accreditation threshold, has been reached) and as quality assurance is too ubiquitous to allow for an overview on a global scale in this report,
Classifications and rankings considered in U multirank Type Name Classifications Carnegie classification (USA) U-Map (Europe) Global League tables and Rankings Shanghai Jiao Tong University's (SJTU
) Academic ranking of world universities (ARWU) Times Higher education (Supplement)( THE) QS (Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd) Top Universities Leiden Ranking National League tables and Rankings US News & World Report (USN≀
The netherlands) Specialized League tables and Rankings Financial times ranking of business schools and programmes (FT; global) Businessweek (business schools, USA+global) The Economist (business schools;
global) The major dimensions along which we analysed the classifications, rankings and league tables included: Level: e g. institutional vs. field-based Scope:
implying but often not explicating different conceptions of quality of higher education and research. Most are presented as league tables;
especially the most influential ones, the global university rankings are all league tables. The relationship of indicators collected
and their weights in calculating the league table rank of an institution are not based on explicit let alone scientifically justifiable conceptual frameworks.
ignoring that they are about different dimensions and sometimes use different scales The problem of league tables:
most rankings are presented as league tables, assigning each institution at least those in the top-50, unique places, suggesting that all differences in indicators are valid and of equal weight (equidistant positions).
and with a transparent methodology Qualifications frameworks and Tuning Educational Structures, showing that at least qualitatively it is possible to define performances regarding student learning
thus strengthening the potential information base for other dimensions than fundamental research Comparative assessment of higher education student's learning outcomes (AHELO):
this feasibility project of the OECD to develop a methodology extends the focus on student learning introduced by Tuning and by national qualifications frameworks into an international comparative assessment of undergraduate students,
P*CPP/FCSM Citations-per-publication indicator (CPP) Quality of education Alumni of an institution winning Nobel prizes and Fields Medals (10%)Phds awarded per staff (6%)Undergraduates admitted per staff
and enrolment in study programmes rises after positive statements in national, student-oriented rankings. Both in the US and Europe rankings are used not equally by all types of students (Hazelkorn, 2011:
'The reputation race (van Vught, 2008) implies the existence of an ever-increasing search by higher education and research institutions and their funders for higher positions in the league tables.
Quality of higher education and research institutions. Rankings'incomplete conceptual and indicator frameworks tend to get rooted as definitions of quality (Tijssen, 2003.
'Institutional leaders are under great pressure to improve their institution's position in the league tables.
Similarly, rankings may provide useful stimuli to students to search for the best-fitting study programmes
but that the current rankings and league tables seem to invite overreactions on too few dimensions
Rankings should not use league tables from 1 to n but should differentiate between clear and robust differences in levels of performance.
Higher education and research institutions are predominantly multipurpose, multiple-mission organizations undertaking different mixes of activities (teaching and learning, research, knowledge transfer, regional engagement,
the production of league tables and the denial of contextuality. In addition it should minimise the incentives for strategic behaviour on the part of institutions to‘game the results'.
or functions of‘teaching and learning, research, and knowledge transfer'is a simplification of the complex world of higher education and research institutions.
One of the reasons why there is so much criticism of league tables is exactly the point that from similar sets of inputs,
as they may consider this as an important aspect of their learning experience and their time in higher education (consumption motives).
For different dimensions (research, teaching & learning, knowledge transfer) and different stakeholders/users the relevance of information about different aspects of performance may vary.
Conceptual grid U multirank Stages Functions & Audiences Enabling Performance Input Process Output Impact Functions context Teaching & Learning Research Knowledge Transfer Audiences
Teaching & Learning Research Knowledge Transfer International Orientation Regional Engagement In chapter 3 we will discuss the various indicators to be used in these five dimensions.
An important factor in the argument against rankings and league tables is the fact that often their selection of indicators is guided primarily by the (easy) availability of data rather than by relevance.
and processes and the dissatisfaction among users of most current league tables and rankings is because they often are interested more in institutional performance
Compared to existing league tables we see this as one of the advantages of our approach.
Grouping 2. 4. 4u-Multirank does not calculate league tables. As has been argued in chapter 1, league table rankings have severe flaws
teaching & learning, research, knowledge transfer, international orientation, regional engagement. This chapter provides an overview of the sets of indicators selected for the five dimensions,
the five subsections that follow present the indicators for the five dimensions (teaching & learning, research, knowledge transfer, international orientation, regional engagement).
Students'learning outcomes after graduation would be a good measure of outcomes. However measures of learning outcomes that are internationally comparable are only now being developed in the AHELO project (see chapter 1) 9. At this moment such measures do not exist,
but if the AHELO project succeeds they would be a perfect complementary element in our indicator set.
in order to reflect performance in the teaching and learning dimension. Teaching & learning can be looked at from different levels and different perspectives.
As one of the main objectives of our U multirank project is to inform stakeholders such as students,
peer learning, counselling services, etc. 8 Outputs are direct products of a process, outcomes relate to achievements due to the outputs. 9 http://www. oecd. org/document/22/0, 3343, en 2649 35961291 40624662 1 1 1 1,
00. html. 53 Another approach to get close to learning outcomes lies in assessing the quality of study programs.
The qualifications frameworks currently being developed in the Bologna process and in the EU may come to play a harmonising role with regard to educational standards in Europe,
but they are not yet effective (Westerheijden et al.,2010) and of course they do not apply in the rest of the world.
Besides, measures of students'progressing through their programs can be seen as indicators for the quality of their learning.
'indicators for quality can be sought in student and graduate assessments of their learning experience. The student/graduate experience of education is conceptually closer to
however, that student surveys can give valid and reliable information in a European context. One of the questions that we will return to later on in this report is whether a student survey about 10 http://www. eurostudent. eu:
8080/index html. 54 their own program/institution can produce valid and reliable information on a global scale.
& Learning indicators that were selected for the pilot test of U multirank. The column on the right-hand side includes some of the comments
Indicators for the dimension Teaching & Learning in the Focused Institutional and Field-based Rankings Focused Institutional Ranking Definition Comments 1 Expenditure on teaching Expenditure on teaching activities
But sensitive to regulatory (accreditation) and disciplinary context. Data collection and availability problematic. 4 Relative rate of graduate (un) employment The rate of unemployment of graduates 18 months after graduation as a percentage of the national rate of unemployment
project based learning; joint courses/projects with business students (engineering; business knowledge (engineering; project management;
But indicator of social context, not of educational quality. Student satisfaction indicators Indicators reflecting students'appreciation of several items related to the teaching & learning process.
Student satisfaction is of high conceptual validity. It can be made available in a comparative manner through a survey.
Range of courses offered, coherence of modules/courses, didactic competencies of staff, stimulation by teaching quality of learning materials, quality of laboratory courses (engineering) 23 Student satisfaction:
feedback on homework, assignments, examinations; coaching during laboratory/IT tutorials (engineering only; support during individual study time (e g. through learning platforms;
suitability of handouts. 25 Student satisfaction: Opportunities for a stay abroad Index made up of several items:
For our field-based rankings, subject-level approaches to quality and educational standards do exist. In business studies, the‘triple crown'of specialized
voluntary accreditation by AACSB (USA), AMBA (UK) and EQUIS (Europe) creates a build up of expectations on study programs in the field.
or more of these international accreditations presents an overall, distant proxy to their educational quality. However, the freedom to opt for international accreditation in business studies may differ across countries,
which makes an accreditation indicator less suitable for international comparative ranking. In engineering, adherence to the Washington Accord depends on national-level agencies, not on individual higher education institutions'59 strategies.
These considerations have contributed to our decision not to include accreditation-related indicators in our list of Teaching & Learning performance indicators.
Instead, the quality of the learning experience is reflected in the student satisfaction indicators included in Table 3-1. These indicators can be based on a student survey carried out among a sample of students from Business studies and Engineering.
As shown in the bottom half of Table 3-1, this survey focuses on provision of courses, organization of programs and examinations, interaction with teachers, facilities, etc.
and services provided by the institution to enhance the learning experience (e g. laboratories, curriculum). Research 3. 3. 2selecting indicators for capturing the research performance of a higher education and research institution or a disciplinary unit (e g. department,
works within academic standards. 12 See: http://www. kowi. de/Portaldata/2/Resources/fp/assessing-europe-university-based-research. pdf 61 Table 3-2:
& Learning and Regional Orientation dimensions included in U multirank. Knowledge transfer through people also takes place through networks
of which have an option of accreditation. 67 Money flows are an important interaction channel, next to texts and people.
as a percentage of the total number of programs offered Signals the commitment to international orientation in teaching and learning.
enrolment Integration of international learning experiences is central element of internationalization. Data available. Indicator not often used.
learning and scholarship that engage faculty, students and region/community in mutual beneficial and respectful collaboration.
Are there visible structures that function to assist with region-based teaching and learning? Is there adequate funding available for establishing and deepening region-based activities?
Are there courses that have a regional component (such as service-learning courses? are sustained there mutually beneficial
The table shows that EUMIDA primarily focuses on the Teaching & Learning and Research dimensions,
their coverage in national databases Dimension EUMIDA and U multirank data element European countries where data element is available in national databases Teaching & Learning relative rate of graduate unemployment
Table 4-2 shows that the Teaching and Learning dimension scores best in terms of data availability.
, United states/US) Dimension U multirank data element Countries where data element is available in national databases Countries where data element is available in institutional database Teaching & Learning
& Learning indicators the situation is rather promising (graduation rate, time to degree). In the Research dimension, Expenditure on Research and Research Publication Output data are represented best in national databases.
U-Map questionnaire institutional questionnaire field-based questionnaire student survey. In designing the questionnaires, emphasis was placed on the way in
accreditation of department; profile with regard to teaching & learning, profile with regard to research. A second part of the questionnaire asks for details of the individual study programmes to be included in the ranking.
In particular the following information was collected: basic information about the programme (e g. degree, length; interdisciplinary characteristics;
full time/part time; number of students enrolled in the programme; number of study places and level of tuition fees;
joint study programme; credits earned for achievements abroad; number of exchange students from abroad; courses held in foreign language;
Student survey 4. 3. 2for measuring student satisfaction (see section 3. 3. 1), the main instrument is an online student survey.
In order to assure that students are pressured not by their institution/teachers to rate their own institution favorably,
and learning experience and on the facilities of the institution. 91 In order to control for possible manipulation by institutions,
In relation to the student survey, the delimitation of the sample is important. As students were asked to rate their own institution and programme,
Teaching and learning. Questions about student numbers and study programmes seem to be unproblematic in most cases.
Problems emerge however with some output-related 92 data elements such as graduate employment, where often data is collected not at the institutional level.
Problems with regard to the availability of data were reported mainly on issues of academic staff (e g. fte data, international staff), links to business (in education/internships and research) and the use of credits (ECTS.
The student survey was pretested on a sample of over 80 students. In general, their comments were very positive.
Based on approved instruments from other fields (e g. surveys on health services) we have used‘anchoring vignettes'to test sociocultural differences in assessing specific constellations of services/conditions in higher education with respect to teaching and learning.
but not to participate in the student survey as they did not want it to compete with their own surveys or effect participation in national surveys.
the collection of self-reported data from the institutions involved in the study (including the student survey) and the collection of data on these same institutions from existing international databases on publications/citations and patents.
o U multirank field-based questionnaires o U multirank Student survey 104 Figure 5-1: U multirank data collection process The institutions were given seven weeks to collect the data,
There are some international student surveys (such as‘Eurostudent) 'but these usually focus on general aspects of student life and their socioeconomic situation.
In Chapter 8 (8. 2) we will discuss the flexibility of our approach to a global scale student survey.
The data collection through the student survey was organized by the participating institutions. They were asked to send invitation letters to their students,
No institution indicated that it did not participate in the student survey because of the cost of inviting the students.
Field questionnaire Mechanical engineering 14 1. 0 20 6. 0 Organization of student survey 18 0. 2 21 4. 4 The analysis also showed that European institutions
5 Field questionnaire Mechanical engineering 4. 6 7 7. 0 4 Organization of student survey 4. 1 7 7. 9 7 107 Figure
The student survey For the student survey, after data checks we omitted the following elements from the gross student sample:
and the Advisory Group. 122 Teaching & Learning 6. 2. 1the first dimension of U multirank is Teaching & Learning.
Teaching & Learning TEACHING & LEARNING Rating of indicators (pre-pilot) Feasibility score (post-pilot) Focused institutional ranking Relevance Concept/construct validity Face validity Robustness Availability Preliminary rating
Teaching & Learning (departmental questionnaires) TEACHING & LEARNING Rating of indicators (pre-pilot) Feasibility score (post-pilot) Field-based ranking Departmental questionnaire Relevance Concept/construct validity Face validity Robustness Availability Preliminary
Teaching & Learning (student satisfaction scores) TEACHING & LEARNING Rating of indicators (pre-pilot) Feasibility score (post-pilot) Field-based ranking Student survey Relevance Concept/construct validity Face validity Robustness Availability Preliminary
rating Feasibility score Data availability Conceptual clarity Data consistency Recommendation Organization of programme A a Inclusion of work experience A a Evaluation of teaching A a
problems with regard to the feasibility of individual indicators from the student survey. General aspects of feasibility of a global student survey are discussed in section 6. 3. Research 6. 2. 2indicators on research include bibliometric indicators (institutional
and field-based) as well as indicators derived from institutional and field-based surveys. In general the feasibility of the research indicators,
In some countries the U multirank student survey conflicted with existing national surveys, which in some cases are highly relevant for institutions.
the time window to organize a student survey across all institutions has to be at least six months
and data quality this problem will be mitigated. 135 Student survey data 6. 3. 2one of the major challenges regarding the feasibility of our global student survey is
and thus that the feasibility of the data collection through a global-level student survey is sufficiently feasible.
While students can be asked about their learning experience in the same way across different fields
and clinical education are relevant indicators in the teaching and learning dimension. Following the user-and stakeholder-driven approach of U multirank,
& Learning Research Knowledge transfer international orientation Regional engagement student staff ratio graduation rate qualification of academic staff research publication output external
-Institution 4 Institution 1--Institution 3-Institution 7---Institution 8--Institution 9 Institution 5-Institution 6-Teaching & Learning Research Knowledge
An example is a detailed view on the results of a department (the following screenshot shows a sample business administration study program at bachelor and masters level.
for prospective students intending to choose a university or a study program, low student satisfaction scores regarding the support by teaching staff in a specific university or program is relevant information,
The implementation has to separate ranking from higher education policy issues such as higher education funding or accreditation.
for instance a student survey is much more expensive if universities have no e-mail-addresses of their students,
Academic quality, League tables, and Public Policy: A Cross-National Analysis of University ranking Systems. Higher education, 49,495-533.178 Dulleck, U. and R. Kerschbamer (2006."
Promoting Civil Society Through Service-Learning. Norwell, Mass.:Kluwer. IAU, International Association of Universities (2005.
The Magazine of Higher Learning, Vol. 41, No. 3, p. 8-13. Iversen, E. J.,Gulbrandsen, M,
A global survey of university league tables. Toronto: Educational Policy Institute. Van dyke, N. 2005. Twenty Years of University Report cards.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011