E-studies constructivist learning approaches are used worldwide at the universities in the 21^st century. They allow students to construct new knowledge through active participation in collaborative practical activities, and they imply cardinal changes in teaching.

The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the challenges in pedagogical leadership of e-learning as a collaborative multidimensional socio-cultural ecological system (eLaSCES) at the master level of the academic education with a special emphasis on organization, planning and other factors determining quality of education and of its institutional e-studies. The concept was published by IGI Global in 2014. The structural components of this new concept of e-learning are: 1) a systemic-constructivist competence of students; 2) life- and workforce e-studies contexts that are complex, unpredictable and require new strategic approaches; 3) pedagogical leadership of e-learning in tandems of teachers, and 4) formative internal, external and self-assessment.

Objective and subjective conditions for successful implementation of eLaSCES were established. The objective conditions are: the integration of students’ informal knowledge of ITC; implementing pedagogical leadership in tandems for developing students' intrapreneurship; formative internal, external and self-assessment of competences; and self-enhancement. The subjective conditions are: personal involvement of teachers and students; supportive social climate; and eagerness and grit for transforming challenges into new learning opportunities. E-learning as a socio-cultural ecological system fosters students' and faculty staff's participation, producing new knowledge and pedagogical solutions that create synergy between science, education, and politics.

The dilemma is in the discrepancy between the values given to quality predictors in self- and internal assessment and the values given at the educational institutional level, the former being based in social critical theory (discernment involving both understanding and theoretical explanation), and the latter -in prescriptive scientific theory (“ought-be” rational approach). Therefore the quality policy in higher education is the main challenge for implementation of innovative collaborative pedagogical technologies of e-learning in the educational practice.

The research questions are 1) “What challenges are evident in the evaluation of the quality of pedagogical leadership of students’ collaborative e-learning, using this concept in practice of tertiary education institution?” 2) “What can we learn from students’ “voices” and observations of teachers’ participation?”

Bache, C. M. (n.d.) (2001). What is transformational learning? Retrieved from http://www.noetic.org/Ions/events/translearning.htm Becker, H.S, Geer, B., Hughes, E.C. (1968). Making the grade: The academic side of college life. New York: JohnWiley and Sons, Inc. Birzina, R., Fernate, A., Luka, I., Maslo, I., & Surikova, S. (2012). E-learning as a challenge for widening of opportunities for improvement of students’ generic competences. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9(2), 130–142. doi:10.2304/elea.2012.9.2.130 Evans, K., Guile, D., & Harris, J. (2011). Rethinking Work-Based Learning for Education Professionals and Professionals who Educate. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B.N O’Connors (eds) The SAGE handbook on Workplace learning (pp. 149-161). London: Sage. Federighi, P., & Torlone, F. (2010). Low skilled take their qualifications "one step up". Firenze University Press. Glaser, B. G & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Hanushek, E. A., Wößmann, L. (2006). Does Educational Tracking Affect Performance and Inequality? Differences-in-Differences Evidence across Countries. Economic Journal, 116 (510), 63-76. Han, SoongHee (ed.) (2010). Managing and Developing Core Competences in a Learning Society. Seul: Seoul National University Press. Maslo, I, Surikova, S., & Fernández González, M.J. (2014). E-Learning for Widening Participation in Higher Education. IN: V. Zuzevičiūtė, M. Romeris, E. Butrimė, D. Vitkutė-Adžgauskienė, V. Vladimirovich Fomin, & K. Kikis-Papadakis (Eds) E-Learning as a Socio-Cultural System:A Multidimensional Analysis, (pp. 21-42). Hershey PA, USA: IGI Global. Maslo, E. (2004). Critically reflection on the organisation of the process of learning in the form of self-evaluation of the process of learning. Lernen in Transforationsprozessen. Forschungsergebnisse und Erfahrungen aus der Republik Lettland. Weiterbildung in der Region, 15, 37-50. Maslo, E., Leví Orta, G., Persevica, A., Nikolaeva, A., & Fernández González, M. J. (2012). Workplaces as key transformative learning spaces for facing socioeconomic crisis in post-Soviet contexts: The case of Latvia. In L. Chisholm, K. Lunardon, A. Ostendorf, & P. P. Pasqualoni (Eds.), Decoding the meanings of learning at work in Asia and Europe (pp. 181-198). Innsbruck University Press. http://www.dpu.dk/fileadmin/www.dpu.dk/ASEM/publications/decoding_meanings_web.pdf Mezirow, J. D. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quarterly, 32(1), 3-24. Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.