Inted 2010 ugc final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Inted 2010 ugc final

on

  • 865 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
865
Views on SlideShare
801
Embed Views
64

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

2 Embeds 64

http://www.concede.cc 61
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • The CONCEDE multi-layered quality framework is described below. 1. A first level of quality assurance is based on users’ comments, reviews and ratings in relation to a learning experience taking place within one HE institution. This is a bottom up process, since users decide on whatever grounds they prefer whether a UGC is relevant to their needs. This can be done by letting users rate or comment on the UGC or describe how they have used it. The argument for such an approach would be that quality is not an inherent part of an UGC but contextual. It is only the specific learning situation that determines whether a UGC is useful or not, and therefore the user should be the judge. Moreover, in this way UGC is viewed through various “lenses”, such as professional societies, universities, school boards, publishers, colleagues and peers, and various “criteria”: most popular content, most linked, highest user ratings, and learning assessment rating (OECD, 2007, Giving knowledge for free: the emergence of open educational resources). Users reviews will be linked to their e-portfolios (linked in; social network…), so that peers will be able to contextualise their judgement and reviews. In this way it will be possible to link narrative elements of content creators to UGC: the assumption is that UGC must not be anonymous. A 2.0 environment will be prompted for hosting this process. 2. A second layer of quality assurance is based on institutional quality procedures undertaken by universities. Institutions most probably use internal quality checks and procedures before integrating UGC into learning provisions. Teachers are the main actors of this level. This could be considered a top down process. The third layer is dialogue and negotiations among the representatives of these two levels of quality assurance (i.e. teachers and learners) in order to reach a consensus which determine a synthesis of both layers described above. Dialogue and exchange of practices will take place both in presence and through the ad hoc learning environment

Inted 2010 ugc final Presentation Transcript

  • 1. QUALITY ASSURANCE OF USER GENERATED CONTENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION Claudio Delrio University of Emilia Romagna (ITALY) Thomas Kretschmer Institute for Innovation in Learning (ILI/FIM) Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (GERMANY)
  • 2.  
  • 3. Explosion of User Generated Content Time person of the year 2008
  • 4. Changing faces of e-Learning From Distribution… … to Collaboration and Reflection Transmissive Learning Expansive Learning Learning Management Systems Materials online Presentation Information E-Portfolios Weblogs Communication Collaboration WiKis Communities
  • 5. The scope
    • The “explosion” of user generated content (UGC) takes place at such a magnitude and extent which go beyond definitory boundaries. However, some common traits can be identified (Adaptation from OECD study on the Participative Web: User Generated Content , 2008 ):
      • Publication and sharing: be it on a publicly accessible website, a collaborative project work, or on a page on a social networking site accessible to a selected group of people
      • Creative effort: often also has a collaborative element to it, as is the case with websites which users can edit collaboratively. Yet the minimum amount of creative effort is hard to define and depends on the context.
      • Creation outside professional contexts: but possibility of feedback into organisational settings . It often does not have an institutional or a commercial market context. Motivating factors include: connecting with peers, achieving a certain level of fame, notoriety, or prestige, and the desire to express oneself.
      • Or:
      • “ UGC is content produced by the end user” (Wikipedia)
  • 6. Example 1
  • 7. Example 2
  • 8. Universities and UGC (1)
    • There are several inhibiting factors both to the introduction of UGC into higher education and the related development of quality frameworks. Some of them are:
      • Lack of time, skills and reward system for teachers and still a significant share of learners
      • Reluctance of many teachers to use or create UGC, since they challenge the concept of “authority”
      • Ensuring quality of UGC is sometimes perceived as an additional burden instead of a key asset for learning experiences’ enrichment and knowledge management
      • Measuring quality of collaborative UGC is not easy due to the difficulty of seizing individual contributions
      • The use of UGC for learning is often considered a supplement to traditional pedagogic strategies instead of vehicle of pedagogic and organisational innovation.
      • insufficient involvement of stakeholders, policy makers and users in the dialogue on quality into higher education
  • 9. Universities and UGC (2)
    • Enhancing quality of UGC and ultimately fostering its acceptance into teaching and learning practice is fundamental for universities in their modernisation agenda.
    • European Qualifications Framework :
      • Emphasis on the recognition of informal and non-formal learning
      • Emancipation of qualifications and competences obtained in non-formal settings
    • Students will demand it!!
  • 10. What is the object of quality assessment in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches ? (QMPP, 2009)
    • Activity, behaviour, communication
      • Social interaction and networks; process of communication; activity, behaviour, communication
    • Process of learning
      • Process more important than outcomes; control of activities
    • Structure of learning objects
      • User satisfaction; standardization; tagging
  • 11. What are methods and instruments to assess/develop quality in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches? (QMPP, 2009)
    • Self assessment
      • Empowerment of learners; supporting system; tools & guidelines
    • Peer reviews, external assessment and collaborative dialogue
      • Polls, surveys; wisdom of the crowds
    • Challenges and problems
      • Absence of standards; „garbage-in-garbage-out“-problem
  • 12. Peers‘ / learners‘ side Peer creation Peer validation Editing Updating Enriching Benchmarking Peer reviews Peer reflections Peer learning Enabling processes Enabling tools Enabling policies Enabling policies
  • 13. Methods of quality development for eLearning 2.0 (Ehlers 2009) Teachers Evaluations aimed at target group Peers, learning communities Social recommendation Teachers Assessment of e-portfolios Learners with the help of/ feedback by teachers Self-evaluation Quality assessment by Methods of quality development
  • 14. The CONCEDE quality framework (www.concede.cc) Quality Procedures of LEARNERS (discussed through peer reviews, comments and rating) INSTITUTIONAL Quality Procedures (primarily represented by teachers) Dialogue & Negotiation
  • 15. Partners
    • Institut für Lern-Innovation (ILI) - Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
    • European Federation for Quality in eLearning - EFQUEL (BE)
    • HCI Productions Oy (SU)
    • Budapest University of Technology and Economics – BME (HU)
    • Universitat Oberta de Catalunya - UOC (ES)
    • University of Plymouth (UK)
    • Portuguese Catholic University (PT)
    • MENON Network EEIG (BE)
  • 16. Thank you for your attention!!
      • [email_address]
      • www.fim.uni-erlangen.de
      • www.efquel.org
      • Skype: kre.fim
      • SecondLife: Hildegard Morpork
      • Follow-up at the:
      • EFQUEL Innovation Forum
      • Sept. 8-10, Lisbon (Portugal)