Inted 2010 ugc final

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)

Explosion of User Generated Content Time person of the year 2008

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

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)

Example 1

Example 2

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

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!!

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Inted 2010 ugc final

by European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning on Sep 28, 2010

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 54

Statistics

Inted 2010 ugc final — Presentation Transcript

http://www.concede.cc	51
http://translate.googleusercontent.com	3