madrid, 26/3/2004 italian report work in progress activities second transnational meeting madrid,...
TRANSCRIPT
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Italian Report WORK IN PROGRESS ACTIVITIES
Second Transnational Meeting Madrid, 26th march 2004
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Survey
DETC - Distance Education and Training Council (US)
Accreditation process for Educational Institutes
Intra-governmental Commission – Directive for e-learning quality
Proposal of guidelines and Vademecum for e-learning quality projects in PA
ASFOR – Association for business management training
Proposal of an accreditation process for E-learning Masters
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Further Activities
Focus on the ASFOR accrediting process
Official national scenario
Comparison of APs (synoptic table)
First attempt to draft a model of Accrediting Systems
Some specific criteria
SIG-DLAE Accrediting System
Madrid, 26/3/2004
ASFOR Association for Business Management Training
• Experience of Italian accrediting process
• Specifically for on line/blended master programmes
• on Management and Business Administration
• On going project , still in phase of experimentation and testing
• Identification of specific Quality Criteria: traditional vs on line
• European trends and contributions: EQUIS project - EFMD
Madrid, 26/3/2004
ASFOR Experimentation
Application Content:
Specialist Masters for Executives
Executive MBA (Master in Business Administration)
Finality of the experimental phase:
- a) to evaluate the validity and completeness of quality criteria
- b) to test monitoring tools and indicators
Polytechnic of Milan Master MAF…
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Focus points of criteria
I. Typology of master
II. Admission procedures
III. Didactic methodologies
IV. Duration and articulation
V. Project Team and Faculty
VI. Tutorship and assistance
VII. Evaluation process
VIII. Technical and support equipment, standards
IX. Customer satisfaction
Madrid, 26/3/2004
II. Admission Criteria
• Specialist Masters for Executives Graduated people with at least 3 years experience
• Executive MBA At least 70% of graduated people with 5 years experience
III. Didactic Methodology Blended Learning and mix of activities
proportion among the various methods
mix of Active Learning methodology is strongly suggested :
Virtual Role playing scenario
Case Studies
Self -evaluation
Project works
Madrid, 26/3/2004
IV. Duration and articulation
Minimum duration (A)
Project work
Didactic hours
(B= C+ D)
Hours of frontal lessons or virtual class synchronous ( C)
Hours of asynchronous activity of e-learning (no self learning) (D)
Executive Master on Line in Business Administration
500 hours Yes 500 *** 200 (Max: 50% of virtual classroom)
300
Master Specialistic
1200 hours
Yes 600 *** 150-300 (Max: 50% of virtual classroom)
300-450
*** Project works, stages and self-learning are not included in didactic hours.
Madrid, 26/3/2004
V. Project Team and Faculty
E-learning faculty has new roles and should be a staff composed by:
Tutors Didactic coordinatorTechnology Help Desk assistant LMS/CLMS administratorTeachers Content experts
Criteria on experience and turnover
VI. Evaluation process
explicit, coherent with objectives of courses
different steps during the learning process
student capabilities and knowledge
LMS tracking
Monitoring of different learning activities (quality assessments/scores..)
Final examination on presence
Madrid, 26/3/2004
need of declare the involvement of tutors (hours; ratio tutor on number of students,etc.)
Service Level Assistance :
8 working hours: time to replay to student requests/helps 4 working hours: time to assure technological assistance and Help Desk16 working hours for teacher/expert consulting
VII. Tutorship and assistance
VIII. Technical and support equipment and standards
LMS/CLMS: AICC, IMS and/or SCORM compliant
Support equipment for collaborative learning
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Customer satisfaction must be pursued by:
mapping different methodologies
promoting blended learning models
measuring Learning Objects
guaranteeing tutorship by a well defined scheduling assistance services.
Customer satisfaction must be evaluated by questionnaires.
Key note: student drop out has never to be more than 20% of the enrolled people.
IX. Customer Satisfaction
Madrid, 26/3/2004
180 credits First Level (Bachelor)
120 credits Second Level (Master)
………3 years PhD
Following 1st level
Master- not master
Following 2nd level
The University Credit System
1 credit = 25 hours (conventional)
All the University are aligned with the credit system
Madrid, 26/3/2004
a) The Education & ICT Ministries
Moratti – Stanca Law
The Official Scenario
b) The Italian Confederation of Deans (CRUI)
CampusOne project
c) Others
sie-l Italian Society of e-learning
Madrid, 26/3/2004
ANEE Survey 2002/2003
Not so big
6 universities on 77 are really developing e-L
More universities produce “web enhanced courses”
The Market of University in e-learning
Madrid, 26/3/2004
7 persons commission since summer 2003
Only 1 new university at the moment
Criteria:
• Technological (platform, LO,…)
• A min. threshold for teachers/tutors
• Didactical (evaluation – exams, services, customer satisfaction,..)
Polytechnic is accredited because it was the first in Italy (before the law)
Moratti – Stanca Law
Madrid, 26/3/2004
CdL – IoL (On line Degree in Computer Science) was accredited in December 2003
4 steps (+ step zero)
0. Polytechnic decides courses to be available
1. CoampusOne analyses document and web site
2. The managing structure evaluates itself
3. On-sit Visit (not by surprise): 2 days-long meeting; face-to-face interviews with students/teachers/tutors/managers/employees
4. Recommendations
5. (Future checks)
CRUI project - CampusOne
Madrid, 26/3/2004
The 8 best practices in Virtual university
elected by EU through PSRamboll survey
A general Accreditation
The e-L model of Polytechnic of Milan (many projects: IoL; Matser NetBA; MathOnLine)
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Founder Associates: Polytechnic of Milan (A.Colorni)University of Florence (A. Calvani)University of Milano-Bicocca (G. Martinotti)ITD-CNR of Genova (G. Olimpo)
200 Members
Web site: www.sie-l.it
SIe-L Società Italiana di e-learning
No profit association
It aims at favouring the development of e-learning in Italy, above all, at University, post-university and high-school level
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Comparison of APs: DETC key factors
Preparat. ConclusionExaminationApplication Renewal
DETC Preliminary Examination
SER Submit
SER evaluation
Examiner’s Report
Council Examination
• More articulated process of analysis
• Many steps for comments and feedbacks (learning process)• Annual Handbook available on line• Possibility to appeal to the decision before the final notification
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Comparison of APs: ASFOR key factors
Preparat. ConclusionExaminationApplication Renewal
• Flexible to specific situation
• Encouraging system to accreditation
ASFOR First Level
Contitioned Accreditation
Second Level
Full Accreditation
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Matrix of Accreditation Systems Level
Educational path/product
Approach
Institution
Single product
ProductProcessPresence
Blended
e-L
ODLPA
ASFOR
DETC
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Process and product approach
Process Product
• Quality in activities and procedures (Life Cycle: Concept, Design,
Implementation, Release)
• Quality in components and functions (materials, services, etc.)
• Dynamic and systemic vision of the product: Integration with the organisational context
• Static vision of the product: risk of not considering the context where the product works
•Detailed on specifities as well as on specific key factors in educational products
Integrated approach
(i.e. EQO)
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Common Criteria
Integration of various standards (EQO, ODL QC, ….)
I. Pre-analysis of student requirementsII. Planning HR involved in learning activitiesIII. Attention to learner motivationIV. Attention to content model of learning material and
assessmentV. Accurancy of Students SupportVI. Pubblicity and marketing
Main focus: PEDAGOGICAL CRITERIA
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Accessibility (1/3)
ACCESSIBILITY: “Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with disability thanks to specific configurations or/and supporting technologies”
Disability: not only the blinds, but also who sees few, the elderly people, etc.
USABILITY: “Effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which users can reach specific targets in specific contexts”
[ISO 9241, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual displays]
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Accessibility (2/3)
LAW 9th January 2004, n.4: “Arrangements for favouring the access of disabled people to information tools” (GU n.13, 17th January 2004)
Addressed to:
oPublic Administration (Governamental offices, Healthcare Institute, schools and University, ..)
o Educational Institution, providing services to PA
Objective: consistency of web sites, didactical tools and educational materials with the new requirements.
References: W3C http://www.w3c.it/wai/
European arrangement http://www.euroaccessibility.org/
Madrid, 26/3/2004
Accessibility (3/3)
By 9th april 2004:
criteria and general operative and organisational principles for accessibility
Modalities to apply for the evaluation; costs; trademark or logo
Adjustment of institution within 12 months since May 2005
By 9th may 2004:
Guidelines: technical requirements and levels of accessibility
Technical methodologies for evaluating the accessibility
Madrid, 26/3/2004
SIG-DLAE Accrediting System e-learning and blended: OK
National vs European Accrediting System (AS)
Need of not overlapping existing national systems
European AS for accrediting the quality of National systems regarding to international criteria accepted by EU (MetaSystem of Accreditation)
European AS for specific content application not yet considered by national systems
…?
Madrid, 26/3/2004
SIG-DLAE Accrediting System European Master of Science vs whole Higher Education paths
Definition of Master of Science
First Level Degree
(Bachelor)3 Years
First Level Masters/Courses
Second Level Degree
(Master)2 Years
Second Level Masters/Courses
Madrid, 26/3/2004
SIG-DLAE Accrediting System Accrediting Institutions vs Programs
Trends for PA: Accreditation of Institutions
ASFOR system: Accreditation of Programs
It also depends on:
What integration with existing national systems
What level of accreditation (Meta AS,…)
Complexity of the process to be sustained