• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Sequent e xcellence gu-eo_vilnius
 

Sequent e xcellence gu-eo_vilnius

on

  • 535 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
535
Views on SlideShare
535
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

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
  • I am Ebba Ossiannilsson, Lund University, Sweden <br /> I recently, dec 2012 earned my PhD from Oulu University in Finland and I did it through distance <br /> I work for several international and national organisations on open learning and quality and some of them are represented here by their logos <br /> I will here especially emphazise the work on the Paris declaration by UNESCO, the work with OER Service and the MOOC quality project. I also use to serve as a reviewer for several organisations, such as EFQUEL and Epprobate. <br /> I have been asked to talk about the topic I am happy to share this with you today <br />
  • Ossiannilsson (2012) Benchmarking (e)-learning in higher education, Doctoral dissertation, Oulu University, Finland <br /> RQ1 How to conduct benchmarking for (e)-learning? <br /> RQ 2 What are the benefits of benchmarking (e)-learning? <br /> RQ 3 What challenges are encountered when attempting to integrate benchmarking (e)-learning to general quality assurance systems? <br /> The most important in my dissertation at research is on the themes I present here today and that we need to stress taht we dont jsut haveto rethink edcaation and learning, but also quality and how we measure and looka t that <br /> QA, QE, QI <br /> Some ne indicators or way of looking at quality have been explicit <br /> Next slide… <br />
  • There are many words for this concept, e.g., (in alphabetic order) blended learning, digital learning, distance learning, e-learning2.0, <br /> enhanced learning, mobile learning, net-based learning, online learning, open learning, ubiquitous learning, web-based learning. <br /> Often the concepts are seen as synonymous. On the enhanced learning aspect – the term TEL for Technology Enhanced Learning <br /> is often commonly used instead of e-learning in the UK. Open University of Catalonias definition through the e-learning <br /> conceptual framework project, adopted by Epprobate is: “teaching and learning- which may represent a part or the whole of the <br /> education model in which it is used – that makes use of electronic media and devices to facilitate access, promote evolution and <br /> improve the quality of education and training.” <br /> The use of OER and UGC are also more and more integrated and included in the concept (Conole 2012, ICDE 2011, Plotkin 2010). <br />
  • § <br />
  • E-learning: <br /> teaching and learning-which may represent a part or the whole of the education model in which it is used- that makes use of electronic media and devices to facilitate acces, promote evolution and improve the quality of educational education and training (Open U Catalonia) <br /> Anderson and Elloumi (2011) <br />
  • P 81 in my dissertation <br />
  • Cover institutional, pedagogical, technical, ethical and manageriel aspects and include three main categories, including six areas <br />
  • The work by Deleuze and Guattari (1987) was found to give new understanding of the phenomenon of benchmarking e-learning. The theory is <br /> close to the understanding and meaning of connectivity and cultivating cultures. The theory has come to represent a departure point for contemporary <br /> understanding of digital identity, one that resonates with cartographic or map-like metaphors (Giger 2010, Warburton 2010). The terms rhizome and rhizomatic describe theory and research that allow for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. Deleuze and Guattari (1987) oppose it to an arborescent conception of knowledge, which works with dualistcategories and binary choices. A rhizome works with horisontal and trans-species connections, while an arborescent model works with vertical and linear connections. As a model for culture development, the rhizome resists the organisational structure of the root-tree system, which charts causality along chronological lines and looks for the original source of things and looks towards the pinnacle or conclusion of those things. A rhizome, in contrast, ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic chains, organisations of power and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences and social struggles. A rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things, inter-being. In this model, culture spreads like the surface of a body of water, spreading towards <br /> available spaces or trickling downwards towards new spaces through fissures and gaps, eroding what is in its way. The authors outline the concept as principles of connection and heterogeneity; i.e., any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other. The metaphor shows how connections seek their own lines, with points of departure in the middle seeking out the periphery, similarly described in the theories of connectivism and collaboration, and the concept of serendipity. There is no single true view; there are only ever-partial perspectives and <br /> multiplicities of dimension. There is no privileged entry point, and it is always open to change. The rhizome theory is a useful framework for understanding selfdetermined learning. The self-determined pathway to learning is fast becoming familiar to learners in the digital age, and it is also the antithesis of the formal, structured learning found in traditional education (cited in Giger 2010). The concept is therefore true for e-learning, as openness in learning, stretched learning environments and extended learning spaces are unpredictable. The desire for exploring and curiosity and to make connections in digital <br /> networks leads to the epistemology based on a process called serendipity (cited in Giger 2010), which means to find something that was not expected that leads to new connections and new insights, often never ending. However, the concept has nothing to do with chance or randomness. Serendipity has to do with attention and is about holism rather than reductionism. Serendipity helps to make sense and is a <br /> general process. <br />
  • E-learning is becoming increasingly important <br /> in both mainstream and continuing HE. <br /> Improving e-learning will ultimately support the Bologna objectives and EADTU’s “e-Bologna” by: <br /> creating a European Area of Higher Education <br /> ensuring co-operation between universities and raise competitiveness of European universities. <br /> For example: <br /> criteria based on ease of access <br /> new forms of interaction between staff and students and students between them <br /> flexibility, personalisation <br /> and other pedagogical aspects that are more relevant to <br /> e-learning than criteria that are traditionally used for quality <br /> assurance and accreditation. <br /> These express the added value e-learning brings <br /> into higher education <br />
  • 100- page document. Coverage of the manual is reasonably comprehensive from strategic planning for e-learning developments at institutional level through the design of e-learning curricula and course elements to the support for students and teachers in e-learning situations. <br /> We’ve included a glossary of the more specialised terms used following feedback from the pilots that there was scope for mis-interpretation without it. <br /> Each section has a set of benchmarks (33 in total across all six sections), critical factors and assessors notes. <br /> The benchmarks comprise a set of general quality statements designed to cover a wide range of contexts in which programme designers and others work. It is intended that the benchmarks will be relevant to virtually all e-learning situations at HE level. The benchmarks themselves might usefully form the basis for institutions’ quality self-assessment where the full range of criteria and performance indicators are not judged to be relevant to the context (eg in situations where e-learning developments are confined to a minority of courses or to specialist areas of the institution’s work.) <br /> The critical factors and performance indicators which follow then focus on particular topics relevant to the benchmark statements and develop the parameters of quality in respect of each. Not all the critical factors will be relevant in all situations, and several will be seen to cut across more than one benchmark statement (and vice versa). Thus there is no one-to-one relationship between the benchmarks and the critical factors because they are pitched at different levels of analysis. Performance indicators tied to the critical factors are then offered at both general and excellence levels. <br /> The Assessors notes then provide a more detailed and discursive account of the issues surrounding each critical factor and the various approaches which might be taken to meet quality requirements in each situation. <br /> The intention is therefore that the manual can be used at several different levels ranging from a general and quick assessment tool based on compliance with the benchmark statements through to an in-depth analysis taking into account relevant critical factors and performance indicators and using the assessors’ notes as a good-practice guide. <br /> The Manual is NOT about re-inventing the frameworks for QA to fit e-learning. We pondered over whether to include a separate (seventh) section covering monitoring and evaluation in an e-learning context. We decided against such an approach because it would be a repetition of much standard QA protocol with which we are all familiar through institutional practice, national QA bodies etc. There is also the danger that a QA section would be seen as sufficient in itself for assessing quality in an e-learning context when the real trick is to ensure that e-learning developments are integrated into existing systems for audit and assessment, not seen as something separate. <br /> One of the characteristics of an e-learning environment is the sheer amount of monitoring information which may be made available relative to more traditional methods of learning. Most e-learning platforms provide for an extensive level of monitoring and feedback, and student learning behaviour is usually more easily tracked and recorded in an e-learning context than in a traditional classroom. Also, external reviewers are able to gain access to the full range of course materials and to sample the delivery of the programme directly. This has obvious advantages for evaluation but also certain potential disadvantages associated with the sheer volume of data and opinion available. It is hoped that by focussing on specific benchmarks and criteria, institutions will be able to develop performance indicators which are fit for purpose in their own context. <br />
  • As my strong believe caring is sharing <br /> So my footprints and contact details <br /> My slides are available at slidshare where you can find my other presentations as well <br />

Sequent e xcellence gu-eo_vilnius Sequent e xcellence gu-eo_vilnius Presentation Transcript

  • Quality in focus EBBA OSSIANNILSSON, PHD, LUND UNIVERSITY, SE VILNIUS 23 NOVEMBER 2013
  • Ebba Ossiannilsson, PhD Lunds Universitet
  • Ossiannilsson (2012) Benchmarking (e)learning in higher education, Doctoral dissertation, Oulu University, Finland
  • Agenda
  • Driving forces for quality Branding /instant reputation Digitalization Technical innovations Inernatíonalisation Collaborate to compete Social innovations Strategical partnerships “Learn on the go” Ossiannilsson 2013
  • What´s in it for me? Quality is in the eye of the beloved
  • Retrospective or prospektive? • From control to enhancement • Self-evaluation • Peer review • Benchmarking • Certification • Accreditation • Quality assurance CC BY-NC Some rights reserved by Shira Golding
  • Quality culture – dialectic approach Communication Trust Co-operatiop Inclusivness Innovation/Creativity Quality control Processmodels Guidelines Rules Standards Competeces Attitudes Values Self -evaluation CC BY Some rights reserved by SeattleClouds.com
  • Benchmarking “The locus of benchmarking lies between the current and desirable states of affairs and contributes to the transformation process that realizes these improvements.” (2009) Moriarty & Smallman En route to a theory on benchmarking
  • Benchmarking Benchmarking is an internal organisational process that aims to improve the organisation´s performance by learning about possible improvements of its primary and/or support processes by looking at these processes in other, better-performing organisations (van Vught et al. 2008a: 16). The concept was first used by Camp at 10 Xerox (1989 1993).
  • E-learning Epprobate is: “teaching and learning- which may represent a part or the whole of the education model in which it is used – that makes use of electronic media and devices to facilitate access, promote evolution and improve the quality of education and training.” 12
  • The Internet and the Web Learning objects Learning Management Systems Mobile devices Learning Design Gaming technologies Open Educational Resources 80s 93 94 95 98 99 00 01 04 Massive Open Online Courses 05 E-books and smart devices Virtual worlds Social and participatory media Multimedia resources E-Learning timeline 07 08 http://scienceoftheinvisible.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/a-ramble-through-history-of-on http://halfanhour.blogspot.be/2012/02/e-learning-generations.html
  • Background • The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education, ELQ • EADTU, E-xcellence+ • ESMU, Benchmarking eLearning exercise 2009 14 • The First dual-mode distance
  • Positioning the dissertation to its frame of reference Quality assurance Changing cultures E-learning Rhizome Bechmarking Benchmarking e-learning OER/web2.0 Connectivism Quality enhancement Knowledge Management 15
  • Research questions RQ 1 How to conduct benchmarking for elearning? RQ 2 What are the benefits of benchmarking e-learning? RQ 3 What challenges are encountered when attempting to integrate benchmarking e-learning to general 16 quality assurance systems?
  • RQ 1The benchmarking process Ossiannilsson 2011. Reprinted with permission from SCIRP 17
  • Ossiannilsson E & Landgren L (2011). Essential areas that benchmarking e-learning ought to cover. Reprinted with permission from Wiley-Blackwell. 18
  • - context and stakeholders? Cc by joguldi
  • Shelton (2011)   Institutional commitment, support and leadership Teaching and learning Faculty support, student support; course development Technology; evaluation and assessment Cost effectiveness; management and planning Student and faculty satisfaction Other ….require strong and on-going support, training, motivation, compensation, and overall policies.
  • Rhizome Serendipity 22
  • Benchmarking benefits and values • Self assess institutions • Better understand the process • Measure and compare • Discover new ideas • Obtain data to support decision making • Targets for improvements • Strengthen identity, strategy, implementation • Enhance reputation • Respond to national indicators • New standard for the sector Van Vught, F. (2008) A practical guide. Benchmarking in European Higher Education
  • RQ 2 New benefits identified, old ones confirmed • • • • • • 24 Attitudes Collaboration Committment Cultural issues Internal dialogue Internal processes • • • • • • Involvement Management Critical reflections Teambuilding Transparency Trust
  • On changing quality perspectives Networking Sustainability Boundless education Lifelong learning Holistic and conceptual approach and embedded and beyond A move from my students, my course, my resorurse… towards our´s… Globalisation Demography Technical and digital development Student involvement and student completion Quality Frame of references (Ossiannilsson 2012)
  • European Association of Distance Teaching Universities E-XCELLENCE QA in e-learning; a cooperation model between universities and QA-agencies SEQUENT 23 November 2013, Vilnius, LT From Paris conf EADTU 25th Oct 203 George Ubachs (EADTU) Ebba Ossiannilsson (EADTU, Lund University)
  • General objective Creating a QA in e-learning system, because: • The use of e-learning increases • E-learning is an essential element for Lifelong learning • Internationalisation of education is supported by e-learning • E-learning has become mainstream provision Integral part of education – Integral part of QA E-xcellence instrument launched in 2007: Complementary to the existing internal and external national quality assurance systems.
  • E-xcellence: QA in e-learning instrument • Curriculum design, Course design, Course delivery, Services (student and staff support), Management (institutional strategies) • E-xcellence focuses on elements in course provision that contribute to Lifelong Learning schemes, like:  ease of access to courses and services  new forms of interaction (students and staff)  flexibility and personalisation • E-xcellence is a benchmarking instrument.
  • Why benchmarking? The system of benchmarking includes: • The institution taking the responsibility for QA • Self-evaluation as a bases for self-improvement • Using peer reviewers as reference and input for improvement *In a collaborative process of dialogue we create an environment of learning from each other *In a process of comparing the university’s’ performance with best practices in the field of elearning we identify weaknesses and strengths • Setting a roadmap for improvement
  • The basic tool is the quick scan, which can be applied in three ways: The quick scan as a quick orientation (basic option) The quick scan with a review at a distance (extended option) The quick scan with an on-site assessment (most comprehensive option)
  • E-xcellence Associates Label Not a label of proven excellence, but a label to reward continuous educational improvement. Self-assessment Roadmap of improvement Review Essential is integration of benchmarks The label is provided based on an external review at a distance Label or on-site. Virtual Benchmarking Community
  • E-xcellence Roadmap 2005 2006 E-xcellence Project 2007 2008 2009 -> 2011 2012 Excellence instrument E-xcellence + Project TF Quality Assurance label E-xcellence E-xcellence NEXT NEXT E-xcellence Associates label Goal: From project to mainstream implementation of the E-xcellence instrument European wide at the local level.
  • Institutions involved Core Partners (2005-2012) 1 EADTU (The Netherlands) 2 Open Universiteit Nederland (The Netherlands) 3 Open University (United Kingdom) 4 OULU-University (Finland) 5 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) (Spain) 6 PROSE (Belgium) Universities that used E-xcellence 7 Centre National d'Enseignement à Distance (CNED) 8 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) 9 Estonian Information Technology Foundation (EITSA) 10 National Council for Distance Education (APERTUS) 11 Network per l'Universita Ovunque (NETTUNO) 12 European University Association (EUA) 13 Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatie Organisatie (NVAO)
  • Universities that used E-xcellence 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • 32 International Telematic University UNINETTUNO (Italy) Tallinn University (Estonia) Högskoleverket / NSHU (Sweden) KU Leuven (Belgium) The Czech Association of Distance Learning University (CADUV) University of Hradec Králové (Czech Republic) Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava (Slovakia) Universitäre Fernstudien Schweiz (Switzerland) Hungarian e-University Network (Hungary) University of Southern Denmark University of Copenhagen Aarhus University University of Latvia Lund University University of Kuopio University of Porto University of Bologna Universidade Aberta (UAb), Portugal Open University of Cyprus (OUC), Cyprus
  • Universities that used E-xcellence 33 34 35 36 37 Riga Technical University (RTU), Latvia Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza (AGH), Poland Hellenic Open University (HOU), Greece Kaunas University of Technology (KTU), Lithuania MESI (RU) European and Global stakeholders • • 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 36 37 European Centre for Strategic Management of Universities (ESMU), Belgium European University Association African Council for Distance Learning (ACDE), Kenya CommonWealth of Learning (COL), Canada Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Quality in Distance Higher Education(CALED), Ecuador Association for Asian Open Universities (AAOU) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), France International Council for Distance Education (ICDE) EADTU Student Council, The Netherlands EURASHE The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher
  • QA-agencies reached with E-xcellence • • • • • • • • • • ENQA as Associate partner in the project NEXT Portuguese Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education – (A3ES), La Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación (ANECA, Spain), Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad (VLIR), Vlaamse Hogescholenraad (VLOHRA), Dutch-Flemish accreditation body (NVAO), Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education, Higher Education Quality Evaluation Centre (HEQEC – AIKNC), Polish Quality Assurance Agency for Technical Universities (KAUT), Higher Education Planning, Evaluation, Accreditation and Coordination Council (YÖDAK, TR) Hellenic Quality Assurance Agency (HQAA).
  • QA-agencies and e-learning From the ENQA Sigtuna Seminar on QA in e-learning (Oct. 2009) •establish a solid quality assurance system in Europe •eLearning should not be evaluated separately, •There is a need for a common definition and understanding on all aspects of eLearning. •There is a need for a “common language” that would help higher education institutions and quality assurance agencies strive for the same goal. •It is important to meet and discuss quality assurance at the European level and between different stakeholders in the educational sector •to provide adequate training for academic professionals, higher education providers and quality evaluation experts.
  • NEXT STEP: SEQUENT • The “SEQUENT” project aims to promote excellence in the use of ICT in higher education, with a clear goal to prepare European Universities in line with the European Modernization Agenda and to make higher education in Europe fit better to cross-border collaboration initiatives in the implementation of innovative and ICT enhanced partnerships.
  • OBJECTIVES • Convince governments, universities and QA agencies of the necessity to have a QA approach for e-Learning provision • To raise awareness on Open and flexible learning among higher education institutions and networks throughout the mainstream education channels. • Further disseminate instruments for different applications of QA and a clear summary of the available method and to promote UNIQUe and E-xcellence as examples. • To support universities in the adoption of a QA and eLearning strategy, through dissemination and training activities.
  • The benchmarking process • Self evaluation • Full assessment • Road map
  • Further research Globalisation Demography Technical and digital development Student completion Quality, the entire meaning 44
  • Caring is sharing, sharing is caring Footprints W:www.oulu.fi; www.lu.se/ced E:Ebba.Ossiannilsson@oulu.fi E:Ebba.Ossiannilsson@ced.lu.se FB:Ebba Ossiannilsson T:@EbbaOssian Phone: +4670995448 S:http://www.slideshare.net/Ebba Ossiann Ossiannilsson 2013