Ingeborg bo uoc

751 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
751
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ingeborg bo uoc

  1. 1. A QualityDialogue- From Inspection to Inspiration Ingeborg Bø, NorwayEuropean Foundation for Quality in E-learning 1
  2. 2. A Quality Dialogue ToFrom Inspiration Inspection Ingeborg Bø EDEN Senior Fellow, Norway 2
  3. 3. I shallspeakabout:Quality through dialogueThe context within which we are operatingModels for quality assuranceA case study from NorwayThoughts at the end 3
  4. 4. http://www.youtube.com/visitnorway#p/u/38/Jz_fo5-wfUkIceland Finland Norway Sweden Scotland Denmark 4
  5. 5. 6
  6. 6. 7
  7. 7. My golden learningperspectives- after 40 years 8
  8. 8. My golden learning perspectivesafter 40 years in distanceeducation: alwayskeepthestudent´sneedsin mind usetechnology to thebenefitoflearningand make it accessible ensurehighqualitythrough a qualityculture 9
  9. 9. My referencepoints NADE - Norwegian Association for Distance and Flexible Education www.nade-nff.no EDEN – European Distance and E-learning Network http://www.eden-online.org ICDE – International Council for Open and Distance Education www.icde.org EFQUEL – European Foundation for Quality inE-learninghttp://www.qualityfoundation.org 10
  10. 10. EuroeanFoundationforQuality in E-Learning EFQUEL http://www.qualityfoundation.org/A membership organisation, 100 membersEFQUEL enhances the quality of eLearning in Europe by providing services for members and support for all stakeholdersNetworking: Innovation Forum 14 -16 Sept.2011, Oeiras, Portugal 11
  11. 11. Themefor this seminar:Higher Education Rankingsand e-learning 12
  12. 12. Have fun 13
  13. 13. Tony Bates and Albert Sangrà, 2011http://batesandsangra.ca 14
  14. 14. Qualityassurance and evaluation (Chapter 6)Bates and Sangrà(2011)Qualityassurancemethodsarevaluable for accreditationagenciesconcernedaboutinstitutionsusinge- learning to cut corners or reducecostswithoutmaintaining standards.Theycan be useful for providinginstructorsnew to teachingwithtechnology, or strugglingwithitsuse, withmodelsof best practice to follow.However, the best guaranteesofquality in e-learningare a commitment by theleadership to supportinginnovation in teaching, instructorswelltrained in bothpedagogy and theuseoftechnology for teaching, highlyqualified and professionallearningtechnology support staff, adequateresources (especiallyregardinginstructor:studentratios), appropriatemetho dsofworking (teamwork, projectmanagement), and systematicevaluation.Generally, the same standards thatapply to online learningshouldalsoapply to face-to-faceteaching. 15
  15. 15. Recommendation9 (Bates and Sangrà)Use standard methodsof program approval, review and evaluation, slightlyadapted for thespecialcircumstancesof online learning.Ensurethatlearner support is provided in suitableways for off-campus students.Use a team approach, withinstructional designers and web support staff, and best practice in online course design, for hybrid and distancecourses.Ensurethatthecourse design is adapted to meettheneedsofoff-campuslearners.Beginapplyingsomeofthesetechniques to there-designof large face-to-faceclasses. 16
  16. 16. ” I could never have accomplished myMaster’sdegreewithoutthepossiblity to study via e-learning,” says Mona BergJenssen, motherofthreechildren, rectorof 17
  17. 17. Congratulations to Marte Baade Netstudentoftheyear 2010 Norway!!She is an active student at NKI, hascompletedthreecourses in childcare, passedexams and nowdoing her fourthcourse.She is almost blind.”She is an excellent student, ambitious,structured in her studies and veryactivein the Forum supporting and encouragingher fellow students.” 18
  18. 18.  http://gfx.nrk.no/vewStzq0 dLU3qr- PsB61HQ4kKgZbPvcLU SAUW9o5pssw.jpg The netteacher of the year 2010 Norway: Mathis Persen Bongo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5RgrxxQSoc 19
  19. 19. TheSocial webFacebook, twitter, linkdin, slideshare, openeducationalresources, openeducationalpractises, usergeneratedcontent etc. etc. 20
  20. 20. OECD-CERI Qualityassurance in Tertiary Education: CurrentPractises in OECD Countries. Viktoria Kis, August 2005 www.oecd.org/edu/tertiary/reviewQualityassuranceprocedurescan serve two major purposes:improvement and accountability.There is an uneasybalancebetweenboth purposes, whichfrequentlyraisesthequestio nofincompatibility (Vroeijenstijn, 1995a). 21
  21. 21. A differentapproach to qualityMaria Jose Lemaitre. President in RIACES, Iberoamerican Network for QualityAssessment and Assurance in Higher Education, Doingthe same but better Innovate and improve Improvement Change: newissues, newapproaches Currentsituation Innovation 22
  22. 22. The Quality Dilemma  Lack of recognition of e-learning in many countries= absence of standards  Lack of differentiation between quality standards in e- learning and conventional education  Global versus contextualized standards  Difficulties in selecting appropriate quality approaches  Lack of research and exchange of practices in some regions of the worldDr. NarimaneHadj-HamouAssistant Chancellor for Academic Development. HBMEU, DubaiPresident of the Middle East e-Learning Association
  23. 23. The context 24
  24. 24. EuropeanUniversityAssociation (EUA) Recommendations on Quality - 20091. Contextsensitive –Agencies2. Developmentalapproach 2. Allowrisktaking and failure3. Inclusive 3. Sharingexperiences in4. Engagingall key actors QA1. Partnership HEI 25
  25. 25. ”ExaminingQualityCulture: Part 1 – Quality Assurance Processesin Higher Education Institutions”European University Association (EUA) PUBLICATIONS 2010Quality assurance as a component of quality culture“There needs to be a perceived value of quality assurance. Quality culture and quality assurance are not the same thing. You can have good QA in place but not necessarily a quality culture. The challenge is linking the outcomes of QA to the development of a quality culture that enhances the student experience.” - Respondent to the survey“Much of the quality is dependent on the informal nature of staff/student relationships. The increasing calibration of quality indicators has led to a concern that this relationship will become formalised and thus less productive.” - Respondent to the survey 26
  26. 26. Quality assurance as a component of quality culture (EUA)“…quality culture refers to an organisational culture that intends to enhance quality permanently and is characterised by two distinct elements:on the one hand, a cultural/psychological element of shared values, beliefs, expectations and commitment towards quality and,on the other hand, a structural/ managerial element with defined processes that enhance quality and aim at coordinating individual efforts. “(EUA 2006: 10) 27
  27. 27. European FederationforQuality in E-learninghttp://www.qualityfoundation.orgThe Foundation (2005) undertakesactivities to: contribute to thequalityofe-learning in Europe and providesleadership in thisfield promotethe European diversityofqualityapproaches and services in thefieldoflearning, education and training broadenthediscussion and discourseoneLearningquality provide a single entrypoint for eLearningquality. 28
  28. 28. The OPAL Vision Unesco, ICDE, EFQUEL, Open Univeristy UK, AaltoUniveristy, UniversidadeCatólicaPortugese, University Duisburg-Essen Focusonthepractisesof OER ratherthantheresources. Better understandingwilllead to improvements in thequalityof OER and more innovation. Open EducationalResourcePractise (OEP) constitutethe range ofpractisesaroundthecreation, use and managementof OER withtheintent to improvequality and innovative education. 29
  29. 29. EFQUEL Innovation Forum 2010Innovation Forum 2010”What arethequalityimplications in anincreasinglyopen context?” 30
  30. 30. EFQUEL Innovation Forum 2010 Recommendations”HOW CAN QUALITY APPROACHES EVOLVE AND ENHANCE INCLUSION, INNOVATION AND EXCELLENCE" Confidence Leadership culture Policy support 31
  31. 31. EFQUEL Innovation Forum 2011 CERTIFY THE FUTURE...?!Accreditation, Certification and Internationalisation 32
  32. 32. Models for EUROPEAN DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING NETWORKQualityA NETWORK AND MEETING PLACE FOR THE OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING COMMUNITY IN EUROPEAssurance 33
  33. 33. Different kinds ofcertification and accreditationofe-learning•Public accreditation. Regulatory framework (European Network for Quality Assurance, ENQUA)•Certification of e-learning as part of a broader system (UNIQUE, EFMD-CEL)•Certification within a system of agreed association standards (Commonwealth of Learning, EADTUE-xcellence, NADE) 34
  34. 34. The UNIQUe Certification
  35. 35. History
  36. 36. UNIQUe Value Proposition A methodology for implementingquality Technology Enhanced Learning(TEL) system-wide throughout an institution
  37. 37. UNIQUe Value PropositionAccess to world class expertise in thefield of TEL quality management and implementation
  38. 38. UNIQUe Value PropositionSustained support and continuous engagement with quality improvement processes
  39. 39. UNIQUe Value Proposition Approach enhancesentire institutional innovation policy
  40. 40. UNIQUe Value PropositionContinually evolving criteria and standards
  41. 41. UNIQUe Value PropositionA clear, standardised and transparent system for recognition and certification
  42. 42. A Methodology forSystem-Wide TEL
  43. 43. The UNIQUe CriteriaEach criterion looks at howICT is embedded into these processes
  44. 44. 1. Application Formal process Submission of Application Data Form: Short questionnaire Factual information English Allows preliminary formal assessment of the university’s quality in comparison with the UNIQUE quality criteria Two types of institutions: universities or independent institutions within university (schools, faculties,…)
  45. 45. 2. Eligibility Formal acceptance of application Start of process for quality improvement & accreditation UNIQUe supervising body No guarantee Introductory briefing session f2f/by phone
  46. 46. 3. Self-AssessmentHigher Management in dialogue with stakeholdersSelf-critical not promotional; strenghts-weaknesses,
  47. 47. 4. Peer-Review Pool of independent peer-reviewers: experts in HE, eLearning, Quality, University Management Teams of 3 experts / trained reviewers  Guidebook & tools (open questionnaires,...)  Review of SAR and questionnaire results from staff and students & background info  Communicate list of persons they wish to interview & schedule  Preparatory meeting reviewers  Peer review visit (2-3 days): interviews with higher management & other stakeholders (students, tutors,...)  Preliminary conclusions & feedback establish agreed upon developments REPORT Peer-review report incl. Steps for future development  Agreed upon developments – check after 1.5 years  Ratings  Recommendations
  48. 48. 5. Awarding Body Decision Chair + 4 expert members Final decision Recommendations from the reviewers Certification 3 years (with reporting of progress at 1.5 years) Candidate certification: 1 year improvement Non certification: -> 3 years
  49. 49. 6. Continuous ImprovementDevelopment RoR = Report on Results after 18 monthsBased on the steps for improvement the Peer Review Team had recommended
  50. 50. EUROPEAN DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING NETWORKA case study from Norway A NETWORK AND MEETING PLACE FOR THE OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING COMMUNITY IN EUROPE 52
  51. 51. Norwegian Association for Distance and Flexible EducationNADE, a member organisation, founded in 1968Formulated “Code of good practice for distance education”Law regulating the activities from 1948 with an external agency for quality controlNew law 1993 introducing internal quality assuranceQuality guidelines developed in 1993 (Ljoså, Rekkedalet.al), revised several times, latest 2010NADE´s standing committee on quality since 1993NOKUT: National agency for quality assurance regulates tertiary education according to ENQUA´s Guidelines (ESG) 53
  52. 52. Norwegian Association for Distance and Flexible EducationQuality guidelines Regulated by law Institutions accredited by the Ministry of Education Requires that the institutions have a system for quality assurance The responsibility for quality guidelines lies with NADE 54
  53. 53. NADE´sQuality guidelines 2011A new structure with more focus on quality culture:1. Quality management and quality work2. Organisational issues3. Course development4. Information and counselling5. Study-process (enrolment, administration and information, tutors´ contract, tutoring, evaluation and documentation) 55
  54. 54. 56
  55. 55. Thoughts at the end Let us move from inspection to inspiration and stimulate the development of a quality culture Encourage dialogue between accreditation bodies and distance education practitioners Distance education must be accepted as an integral part of the ordinary educational system Put more focusonquality in thesocial web 57
  56. 56. My golden learning perspectivesafter 40 years in distanceeducation: alwayskeepthestudent´sneedsin mind usetechnology to thebenefitoflearningand make it accessible ensurehighqualitythrough a qualityculture 58
  57. 57. Thankyou!ingebob@online.noSlides athttp://www.slideshare.net/IngeborgBoe/ 59

×