Ingeborg bo uoc
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes631 views
The document summarizes a presentation about quality assurance in e-learning. It discusses moving from inspection to inspiration by focusing on dialogue. It provides context of operations in Europe and models for quality assurance. It also discusses a case study from Norway and perspectives after 40 years in distance education with a focus on student needs, accessible technology, and a quality culture. Recommendations are made to use standard evaluation methods adapted for online learning and ensure learner support and best practices.
Ingeborg bo uoc
- 1. A QualityDialogue- From Inspection to Inspiration Ingeborg Bø, Norway European Foundation for Quality in E-learning 1
- 2. A Quality Dialogue To From Inspiration Inspection Ingeborg Bø EDEN Senior Fellow, Norway 2
- 3. I shallspeakabout: Quality through dialogue The context within which we are operating Models for quality assurance A case study from Norway Thoughts at the end 3
- 4. http://www.youtube.com/visitnorway#p/u/38/Jz_fo5-wfUk Iceland Finland Norway Sweden Scotland Denmark 4
- 6. 6
- 7. 7
- 8. My golden learningperspectives - after 40 years 8
- 9. My golden learning perspectivesafter 40 years in distanceeducation: alwayskeepthestudent´sneedsin mind usetechnology to thebenefitoflearningand make it accessible ensurehighqualitythrough a qualityculture 9
- 10. 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 in E-learninghttp://www.qualityfoundation.org 10
- 11. 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
- 12. Themefor this seminar: Higher Education Rankings and e-learning 12
- 13. Have fun 13
- 14. Tony Bates and Albert Sangrà, 2011 http://batesandsangra.ca 14
- 15. 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
- 16. 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
- 17. ” I could never have accomplished my Master’sdegreewithoutthepossiblity to study via e- learning,” says Mona Berg Jenssen, motherofthreechildren, rectorof 17
- 18. Congratulations to Marte Baade Netstudentoftheyear 2010 Norway!! She is an active student at NKI, has completed threecourses in childcare, passed exams and nowdoing her fourthcourse. She is almost blind. ”She is an excellent student, ambitious, structured in her studies and veryactive in the Forum supporting and encouraging her fellow students.” 18
- 19. 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
- 20. TheSocial web Facebook, twitter, linkdin, slideshare, openeducationalresources, openeducationalpracti ses, usergeneratedcontent etc. etc. 20
- 21. OECD-CERI Qualityassurance in Tertiary Education: CurrentPractises in OECD Countries. Viktoria Kis, August 2005 www.oecd.org/edu/tertiary/review Qualityassuranceprocedurescan serve two major purposes: improvement and accountability. There is an uneasybalancebetweenboth purposes, whichfrequentlyraisesthequestio nofincompatibility (Vroeijenstijn, 1995a). 21
- 22. A differentapproach to quality Maria 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
- 23. 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 world Dr. NarimaneHadj-Hamou Assistant Chancellor for Academic Development. HBMEU, Dubai President of the Middle East e-Learning Association
- 24. The context 24
- 25. EuropeanUniversityAssociation (EUA) Recommendations on Quality - 2009 1. Contextsensitive –Agencies 2. Developmentalapproach 2. Allowrisktaking and failure 3. Inclusive 3. Sharingexperiences in 4. Engagingall key actors QA 1. Partnership HEI 25
- 26. ”ExaminingQualityCulture: Part 1 – Quality Assurance Processes in Higher Education Institutions” European University Association (EUA) PUBLICATIONS 2010 Quality 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
- 27. 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
- 28. European FederationforQuality in E-learning http://www.qualityfoundation.org The 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
- 29. The OPAL Vision Unesco, ICDE, EFQUEL, Open Univeristy UK, AaltoUniveristy, UniversidadeCatólicaPortugese, University Duisburg-Essen Focusonthepractisesof OER ratherthantheresources. Better understanding willlead 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
- 30. EFQUEL Innovation Forum 2010 Innovation Forum 2010 ”What are thequalityimplic ations in an increasingly open context?” 30
- 31. EFQUEL Innovation Forum 2010 Recommendations ”HOW CAN QUALITY APPROACHES EVOLVE AND ENHANCE INCLUSION, INNOVATION AND EXCELLENCE" Confidence Leadership culture Policy support 31
- 32. EFQUEL Innovation Forum 2011 CERTIFY THE FUTURE...?! Accreditation, Certification and Internationalisation 32
- 33. Models for EUROPEAN DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING NETWORK QualityA NETWORK AND MEETING PLACE FOR THE OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING COMMUNITY IN EUROPE Assurance 33
- 34. 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, EADTU E-xcellence, NADE) 34
- 36. History
- 37. UNIQUe Value Proposition A methodology for implementing quality Technology Enhanced Learning(TEL) system-wide throughout an institution
- 38. UNIQUe Value Proposition Access to world class expertise in the field of TEL quality management and implementation
- 39. UNIQUe Value Proposition Sustained support and continuous engagement with quality improvement processes
- 40. UNIQUe Value Proposition Approach enhances entire institutional innovation policy
- 41. UNIQUe Value Proposition Continually evolving criteria and standards
- 42. UNIQUe Value Proposition A clear, standardised and transparent system for recognition and certification
- 43. A Methodology for System-Wide TEL
- 45. The UNIQUe Criteria Each criterion looks at how ICT is embedded into these processes
- 46. 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,…)
- 47. 2. Eligibility Formal acceptance of application Start of process for quality improvement & accreditation UNIQUe supervising body No guarantee Introductory briefing session f2f/by phone
- 48. 3. Self-Assessment Higher Management in dialogue with stakeholders Self-critical not promotional; strenghts-weaknesses,
- 49. 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
- 50. 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
- 51. 6. Continuous Improvement Development RoR = Report on Results after 18 months Based on the steps for improvement the Peer Review Team had recommended
- 52. EUROPEAN DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING NETWORK A case study from Norway A NETWORK AND MEETING PLACE FOR THE OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING COMMUNITY IN EUROPE 52
- 53. Norwegian Association for Distance and Flexible Education NADE, a member organisation, founded in 1968 Formulated “Code of good practice for distance education” Law regulating the activities from 1948 with an external agency for quality control New law 1993 introducing internal quality assurance Quality guidelines developed in 1993 (Ljoså, Rekkedalet.al), revised several times, latest 2010 NADE´s standing committee on quality since 1993 NOKUT: National agency for quality assurance regulates tertiary education according to ENQUA´s Guidelines (ESG) 53
- 54. Norwegian Association for Distance and Flexible Education Quality 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
- 55. NADE´sQuality guidelines 2011 A new structure with more focus on quality culture: 1. Quality management and quality work 2. Organisational issues 3. Course development 4. Information and counselling 5. Study-process (enrolment, administration and information, tutors´ contract, tutoring, evaluation and documentation) 55
- 56. 56
- 57. 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
- 58. My golden learning perspectivesafter 40 years in distanceeducation: alwayskeepthestudent´sneedsin mind usetechnology to thebenefitoflearningand make it accessible ensurehighqualitythrough a qualityculture 58