The document discusses quality assurance of user-generated content in higher education. It notes the explosion of UGC due to factors like social networking sites and the desire for self-expression. Ensuring quality of UGC is challenging as contributions can be difficult to assess individually and UGC is seen as supplemental rather than innovative. The document proposes several methods for developing quality, including self-assessment, peer reviews, surveys, and enabling supportive policies, processes, and tools.

1. QUALITY ASSURANCE OF USER GENERATED CONTENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION Thomas Kretschmer Institute for Innovation in Learning (ILI/FIM) Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (GERMANY) Marcelo Maina Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (SPAIN)

2. Introduction “… because quality is no objective characteristics of a learning resource or a service, but is constituted as a specific characteristic of a context which – in turn - is made up through the relation of the personal, organisational, social and structural interaction of the stakeholders involved.” Ehlers (2010) © Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008

4. Explosion of User Generated Content Time person of the year 2008

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Examples: UGC Discussion boards Blogs/Micro-blogging Wikis Social networking sites News Sites Memories Mobile Photos & Videos Customer review sites Experience or photo sharing sites Any other website that offers the opportunity for the consumer to share their knowledge and familiarity with a product or experience © Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008

8. UGC in CONCEDE In the context of this project, UGC can be defined as content that is created and shared freely by University students and/or teachers and which has not been through a process of formal peer review.

9. 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

10. 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!!

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Methods of quality development for eLearning 2.0 (Ehlers 2009) Methods of quality development Quality assessment by Self-evaluation Learners with the help of/ feedback by teachers Assessment of e-portfolios Teachers Social recommendation Peers, learning communities Evaluations aimed at target group Teachers

15. 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

16. 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)

17. Thank you for your attention!! [email_address] www.fim.uni-erlangen.de [email_address] www.uoc.edu