OverviewStrategyInstitutional Strategies

Collis, Betty; van der Wende, Marijk (2002)

Models of Technology and Change in Higher Education. An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in education

From CHEPS – Center for Higher Education Policy Studies

Google this publication · ScholarGoogle this publication

Review by: Seufert, Sabine (2004-09-10)

The research study „Models of Technology and Change in Higher Education“ was conducted by CHEPS (the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies) and the Faculty of Educational Science and Technology of the University of Twente in the Netherlands in 2001. The research project was funded by SURF (the support agency for technology in higher education in the Netherlands), the Bertelsmann Foundation in Germany and the Norwegian Ministry of Education.

The aim of the study was to investigate strategic and policy-based initiatives with respect to the use of eLearning in higher education. Therefore, the main questions for this study were: Which “eLearning scenarios” are emerging, how can future developments be predicted, and strategic choices be based on these scenarios?

The research design consists of an international comparative survey including data from the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, Finland, and a few universities from the USA. Data were collected via web-based questionnaires addressing different target groups: decision makers, support staff and instructors. Overall all, about 20 to 50% of the universities in the mentioned countries responded, not including the USA where the response was much lower.

The research study is based on four scenarios for educational delivery:

The main conclusions of the study can be summarized as follow:

An interesting outcome of the study is that the differences between the countries are not extremely significant. Since the data from USA are too small, the comparison between Europe and America is not feasible. However, the study gives an interesting portfolio of different eLearning strategies relevant for higher education leaders, policy makers, and support units. The focus of the study is sufficiently broad and shows the way to the integration of further innovation processes, such as the bologna reform process. The concrete recommendations (1. Set the target, 2. Become more systematic about the Stretching the Mould, 3. Stimulate new tools that relate to Stretching the Mould, 4. Develop policy for instructor incentives) at the end of the study are too brief and could be discussed in more detail.