Benchmarking Effectiveness in the Educational Development of Three Finnish Universities Using a Multidimensional Evaluation Model (MdE)

REFERENCES

• Bledsoe , K. L. and Graham , J. A. 2005 . The use of multiple evaluation approaches in program evaluation . American Journal of Evaluation , 26 ( 3 ) : 302 – 303 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• See also Torres, R. T. and Preskill , H. 2001 . Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present and future . American Journal of Evaluation , 22 ( 3 ) : 387 – 395 . Biggs, J. The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education 2001, 41 (3), 221–238.
   Google Scholar
• See Ojala, I. and Vartiainen , P. 2006 . Kolmen yliopiston opetuksen kehittämistoiminnan vaikuttavuus - Lapin yliopiston, Lappeenrannan teknillisen yliopiston ja Vaasan yliopiston opetuksen kehittämistoiminnan vaikuttavuuden benchmarking -arviointi , Tampere : KKA . Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 9.
   Google Scholar
• See also Scriven, M . 2001 . Evaluation: Future tense . American Journal of Evaluation , 22 ( 3 ) : 301 – 307 . Smith, M. F. Evaluation: Preview of the future #2. American Journal of Evaluation 2001, 22 (3), 281–300.
   Google Scholar
• See Ojala, I . 2003 . Managerialismi ja oppilaitosjohtaminen , 10 – 13 . Vaasa : Vaasan yliopisto . Acta Wasaensia No. 119, Hallintotiede 8; Temmes, M., Ahonen, P., & Ojala, T. (2002). Suomen koulutusjärjestelmän hallinnon arviointi; Helsinki: Opetusministeriö, pp. 63–71.
   Google Scholar
• See also Hodgkinson, M. and Brown , G. 2003 . Enhancing the quality of education: A case study and some emerging principles . Higher Education , 45 : 337 – 338 . Kohler, J. Quality assurance, accreditation, and recognition of qualifications as regulatory mechanisms in the European higher education area. Higher Education in Europe 2003, XXVIII (3), 317. Ojala, op. cit., pp. 64–65
   Google Scholar
• See for example Parjanen , M. , ed. 1998 . Oppimisen ja laadun kiasma , 31 – 33 . Vammala : Tampere University Press . Koro, J. Korkeakouluopiskelija – aikuinen myös oppijana. In Yliopisto-opetus – korkeakoulupedagogiikan haasteita; Aaltola, J., Suortamo, M., Eds. (1995). Juva: WSOY, pp. 101–103. Temmes, M., Ahonen, P., & Ojala, T. (2002). Suomen koulutusjärjestelmän hallinnon arviointi; Helsinki: Opetusministeriö, pp. 88–97.
   Google Scholar
• Romainville , M. 1999 . Quality evaluation of teaching in higher education . Higher Education in Europe , XXIV ( 3 ) : 415 – 416 .
   Google Scholar
• See Scott, W. R . 1995 . Institutions and organizations , Thousand Oaks, London, CA, New York : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Pounder , J. S. 2000 . Evaluating the relevance of quality to institutional performance assessment in higher education . Evaluation , 6 ( 1 ) : 66 – 67 .
   Google Scholar
• Hämäläinen , K. 1993 . Laadun arviointi yliopistollisessa täydennyskoulutuksessa . Aikuiskasvatus , : 238 – 242 . Stenqvist, P. Korkeakouluarviointia Suomessa. Aikuiskasvatus 1993, (4), 243–247.
   Google Scholar
• 12. Stenqvist, Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• 13. See for example Kohler, op. cit.
   Google Scholar
• 14. Stenqvist, op. cit.
   Google Scholar
• 15. See also Kohler, op. cit.
   Google Scholar
• See Bolton, R. N and Drew , J. 1994 . “ Linking customer satisfaction to service operations and outcomes ” . In Service quality: New directions in theory and practice , Edited by: Rust , R. T. and Oliver , R. L. 176 – 178 . Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Shadish , W. R. 1998 . Evaluation theory is who we are . American Journal of Evaluation , 19 ( 1 ) : 12 – 13 . Vartiainen, P. On the principles of comparative evaluation. Evaluation—The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice 2002, 8 (3), 359–371.
   Google Scholar
• 18. Vartiainen, Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• 19. Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• 20. Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• 21. See Brandon, P. R. Stakeholder participation for the purpose of helping ensure evaluation validity: Bridging the gap between collaborative and non-collaborative evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation 1998, 19 (3), 326–327. Vedung, E. Public policy and program evaluation. (1997). New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, pp. 69–75. Vartiainen, P. The substance of stakeholder evaluation: Methodological discussion. International Journal of Public Administration 2003, 26 (1), 12.
   Google Scholar
• Vartiainen , P. 2004 . The legitimacy of evaluation—A comparison of Finnish and English institutional evaluations of higher education , Frankfurt am Main : Peter Lang .
   Google Scholar
• 23. Vartiainen, op. cit., pp. 7–9.
   Google Scholar
• Camp , R. C. 1989 . Lär av de bästa! Benchmarking i tio steg , 61 – 65 . Lund : Studentlitteratur .
   Google Scholar
• See for example Vartiainen, P . 2001 . “ Mitä on projektiarviointi? Pohdintaa projektiarvioinnin tieteellisestä ja metodisesta genesiksestä ” . In Näkökulmia projektiarviointiin , Edited by: Vartiainen , P. 24 – 27 . Tampere : Finnpublishers .
   Google Scholar
• 26. Vedung, op. cit., pp. 115–117.
   Google Scholar
• See also Lorentsen, A . 2001 . Promoting Internet-Based teaching and learning worldwide . Higher Education in Europe , XXVI ( 4 ) : 515 – 517 .
   Google Scholar
• 28. See also Brandon, op. cit., pp. 333–334.
   Google Scholar
• Vedung , E. 1997 . Public policy and program evaluation , 35 New Brunswick and London : Transaction Publishers .
   Google Scholar
• Foss Hansen , H. 2005 . Choosing evaluation models. A discussion on evaluation design . Evaluation , 11 ( 4 ) : 448 – 451 .
   Google Scholar
• Bledsoe , K. L. and Graham , J. A. 2005 . The use of multiple evaluation approaches in program evaluation . American Journal of Evaluation , 26 ( 3 ) : 302 – 303 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 32. Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• See for example Oakley, A . 2004 . The researcher's agenda for evidence . Evaluation and Research in Education , 18 ( 1&2 ) : 13 – 15 .
   Google Scholar