project!report! - the speaq project · this project has been funded with support from the european...

Ref. 517716-‐LLP-‐1-‐2011-‐1-‐UK-‐ERASMUS-‐EMGR

PROJECT REPORT SPEAQ YEAR 2 PARTNER PROJECTS

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

2

Institution: University of Aveiro

Institutional coordinator: Gillian Moreira

Title of project:

Fórum Speaq@UA – Pensar e Partilhar Práticas de Qualidade no Ensino e Aprendizagem

Forum Speaq@UA – Thinking and Sharing Quality Practices in Teaching and Learning

SUMMARY

Provide a short description of the project

The goal of this project was to create a forum for the discussion of quality issues related to the enhancement of teaching and learning on an institutional (policy) level and a practical (classroom) level. The forum involved a series of work sessions with representatives of the three quality circles (students, teachers and quality managers) and promoted dialogue about key issues which had emerged from the first year of the SPEAQ project. The participants identified and discussed these issues, made concrete proposals for quality enhancement and disseminated their results among colleagues / peers, in their departments and on the institutional web page.

This forum, Fórum Speaq@UA, provided a link which we believe to be missing in the chain of quality enhancement, having found that each quality circle believes ‘quality’/or lack of ‘quality’ to be the responsibility or the fault of the other quality circles. It thus contributed to an awareness that quality processes and practices are a shared responsibility based on the combination of informal and formal quality processes, and an understanding that the quality circle must include all stakeholders. In addition, the forum improved the sense of empowerment and involvement of teachers and students in processes from which they often feel alienated, encouraging them to voice their opinions and reflect on their practices in positive and constructive ways.

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

Why was this project chosen for implementation (out of the potential projects initiatives identified by your institution in the SPEAQ first year activities)? In the University of Aveiro, quality is managed centrally and quality assurance is attributed maximum importance in all institutional activities. In the case of teaching and learning, the management and enhancement of quality involve the participation of students and teachers, course committees and course directors, departmental directors and the pedagogical council, as well as the institutional quality managers. However, the results obtained in Year 1 of SPEAQ revealed above all a sense of frustration amongst participants in the face of what they consider top-‐heavy institutional processes of quality management, which for the most part are seen as having little positive impact on the teaching and learning and are often perceived to be unfair in some way or another to teachers. The enhancement of quality is seen to be made more difficult by these processes and the pressure to ‘get good results’ to have a perverse impact on quality. Above all, it is understood as an inflexible and time-‐consuming process which is necessary for the institution, but not useful or beneficial to better results for teachers and learners. In fact, the ‘quality’ statistics produced by the institution, combined with a culture of rankings

3

and prizes, essential for the external image and assessment of the institution and its degree programmes, do little to impact positively on the practices of those endeavouring to teach or learn better, often in adverse situations (over-‐large classes, demotivated students, career pressures, institutional constraints, etc.). It is therefore important to develop other mechanisms and opportunities for the sharing of problems and possible solutions, for the development of good practice and the bringing together of formal and informal quality enhancement practices.

4

What immediate needs did the project answer?

Quality management has been a priority in our institution since the mid-‐1990s, and the establishment of a robust institutional QM system is an ongoing concern. The current system for the assessment and enhancement of teaching and learning is well-‐rooted in the institutional culture and has become a routine part of academic life. However, many teachers and students do not feel that the system contributes to a better standard of teaching and learning or to a fuller learning experience; it has become a proforma, often undertaken with a spirit of obligation, and does not necessarily involve discussion between teachers and students regarding real problems and concrete solutions. In addition the institution is committed to improving students’ learning and success rates and lowering dropout and repetition rates. Therefore the main need this project answered was the provision of other mechanisms and fora for the sharing of problems and possible solutions, for the development of good practice and the bringing together of formal and informal quality enhancement practices. The Forum was able to answer some of these needs in the short term by: identifying key issues to be addressed, encouraging dialogue and the sharing of both difficulties and good practices, enhancing active participation in quality processes, and introducing confidence that these processes can have an impact on policy and practice; in the long term, it is hoped this initiative will be continued / repeated and that an open dialogue about the quality of teaching and learning will become an everyday habit leading to the identification and dissemination of good practice and a substantial improvement in both teaching and learning and the quality culture within the institution.

OBJECTIVES

Indicate aims (as bullets)

The main aim of the project was to set up a forum for the discussion of quality issues which emerged from Year One of the SPEAQ project, thus promoting dialogue between representatives of the three quality circles (students, teachers and quality managers). More specifically, the project aimed to: § promote an open discussion of issues related to quality assurance and enhancement

between different institutional ‘actors’; § identify and understand better each actor’s roles and responsibilities in the

teaching/learning process; § find common objectives for institutional and practical procedures for improving the

teaching/learning experience; § strengthen the sense of shared responsibility and empowerment of the various institutional

actors; § increase awareness and provide resources and examples of practices which enhance quality

in the institution.

Were the objectives set achieved? If not, why not? Yes, we are confident that the main objectives have been achieved within the scope of the forum we set up. The next step will be to build on the relationships established in this forum in order to put into practice some of the ideas and projects proposed. Showing that talk can lead to action

5

will be a valuable step and the first initiatives have been taken in this direction. It will be important in the future to ensure a consistent participation from students, whose attendance and contribution tended to be sporadic, and a greater participation from all in the online platform, whatever instruments are selected. We are aware that building a relationship of confidence and trust between different stakeholders is a process which needs time and care, and therefore, we are optimistic that these brief months will have caused sufficient impact to allow us relaunch the forum following the summer break with enthusiasm and success.

6

ACTIONS/ACTIVITIES

Describe the actions completed and provide photos from any of the activities, if available The actions planned and executed within this project were: 1. Set up the Forum, by invitation, of a group of “actors” from 3 quality circles (students, staff and quality managers), taking advantage of the participants of the first phase of SPEAQ project (workshop, student focus group, QM interview and the course team meeting) and including other individuals; 2. Plan and organise a series of work sessions on a monthly basis (Feb – June), based on the quality issues raised in first year of SPEAQ. Participants in the Forum will be expected to identify problems and propose solutions, leading to the elaboration of concrete recommendations for change; 3. Set up on-‐line platform for the dissemination of SPEAQ, the Forum SPEAQ@UA, documents and resources, and results (of each work session and of the Forum); 4. Organise a final seminar for the discussion of the findings and recommendations with the university community. During the months January to June, 5 sessions were planned and held, as follows: Session 1 (27th February): In this first session, the Speaq@UA project was explained and discussed with the participants and their ideas taken into account in the planning of the rest of the sessions. Session 2 (15th March): An open discussion of the main issues and topics considered fundamental to the enhancement of quality in teaching and learning led to the identification of 7 main themes for exploration. Session 3 (17th April): A workshop was planned and participants were invited to bring with them concrete situations, problems and or solutions to discuss with members of other quality circles. Out of this discussion, a register of key areas and questions was constructed. The topic of the next session emerged from this discussion. Session 4 (17th May): This work session took the form of a presentation and discussion of the use of on-‐line forums for assessment purposes in situation of blended learning. Session 5 (21st June): The final session took the form of an open seminar, in which the team reviewed the aims and results of the project, and discussed concrete proposals for further activities. In addition, an on-‐line forum was set up and open to all the participants in the Forum, where mini-‐forums were opened for the main themes of discussion.

Choose one activity and detail as an illustrative case study/example of the work carried out in the institution Work Session 3. The date, programme and venue for Session 3 – held on the 17th April – had been decided at the previous meeting. However, as it was a Wednesday afternoon, the time reserved for meetings and events at the University of Aveiro, some of those who had been present at the previous meeting, were not able to attend. On the other hand, some new participants were welcomed. We

7

were 13 in all, including the Speaq@UA team. The session was well-‐planned. It had been decided the session would follow the format of a workshop and that groups would be formed of participants from different quality circles. Each group would discuss a problem or a practice, with a view to sharing viewpoints and thinking, or rethinking, practice from different perspectives. Worksheets were produced. The room was organised. An ‘inspiring’ slide was projected. Participants were welcomed. However, when work was started, it was clear that the participants were not ready for this workshop. We had deliberately not provided situations for the group work, because we wanted these situations to emerge from the groups and not be input by ourselves, and although we had reminded speaqers that they should come prepared, in fact, ‘homework’ was clearly not yet part of the conditions for participation! But what happened instead was extremely productive and marked the moment when our forum began to take on shape and direction. The group decided that it was not possible to move forward without first addressing the question: What is teaching and learning (in Higher Education)? Two hours of intense discussion took place around the ‘big’ issues, for example: What is teaching and learning in the Bologna era? How can students be better engaged in learning? How can teaching be more valued by the institution? What kind of professional training for teachers should be provided? How can the transition to HE be facilitated? How can QA mechanisms be better tuned towards QE? (see DOC6, and DOC10, attached). By the end of the session, we had identified several areas where future action could be taken, and identified the subject, topic and protagonists of the next session. A feeling of purpose had set in and the leadership of the forum had passed from the Speaq team to include the Speaqers themselves. This project was based on the belief that there is a need in the institution for space for teachers and students to come together and talk about what worries and concerns them, in informal and minimally structured settings, and that such discussions can lead to engagement with quality issues and, in the medium and the long term, to real change. This session confirmed this belief and, although the project was limited in time and scope, encouraged us to believe that it can make a positive contribution to the quality of teaching and learning in the institution.

Did you cover all activities planned for? If not, why not and where are you at? Are there intentions to complete the activities not covered in the future? All the activities planned in the work programme were covered (see Project Implementation Document), although the scientific production based on the project will only be finalized in the autumn. In addition, the overall reception of this project was positive; we are therefore convinced that the experience will enable us to build on these activities in the next academic year.

DELIVERABLES

Describe the deliverables produced, i.e. podcasts, worksheets, blogs, wikis, interactive quizzes etc. (and provide as annex)

Include the list of deliverables you are annexing

8

§ Online CMS (http://cms.ua.pt/speaq/) and contents § Documents (invitations, worksheets, memos and presentations) made available before and

after each monthly work session (DOCs 1 – 9 attached) § Article (in preparation) to be submitted to an international journal § Final feedback questionnaire form created to evaluate the activities (DOC 10 attached)

Were the deliverables anticipated achieved? If not, why not. Yes, and no. We planned that each session would produce a document for circulation and discussion in formal or informal settings in departments; we had also planned to produce recommendations for students, staff, quality managers on quality assurance and enhancement. Although we did produce a summary of each session, these were not circulated outside the forum, nor was it possible to produce written recommendations within the timeframe available. This will be taken up in the planned meeting in September.

9

IMPACT

Describe the impact the project has had. The impacts of the project were the following: -‐ The setting up of a group of people (students, staff and quality managers) interested in

quality assurance and enhancement issues related to teaching and learning, who may develop future projects at different levels;

-‐ The creation of a forum for future projects to be developed; -‐ The opening of an online platform with discussion points, documents, shared concerns,

resources; -‐ The mobilization of collective thinking around a series of central concerns, leading to

concrete proposals for action in the future; -‐ An increment to the culture of quality in our university, namely by raising awareness about

key issues and shared experiences, and highlighting the responsibility of all in the enhancement and assurance of quality.

Did the project have the impact envisaged? If not, why not. Amongst the participants and the team, the impact of the project was as expected. We had envisaged a small forum of around 9 -‐ 12 participants who would come together regularly to discuss quality issues and share experience and practice. In fact, participation in the work sessions was good and we had a regular number of attendees, although not all participants could attend all of the sessions, so we consider ourselves satisfied in this parameter. We can also report that this participation was active and enthusiastic, although not always optimistic, and the work sessions took place in an open and informal atmosphere, with regular participants revealed a growing loyalty to the Forum and its activities. For example, at the end of session 3, the question asked was: when will we meet again? And when, during Session 4, it was announced that the June session would be the final one, disappointment was expressed until it was explained that this would be the last session in the academic year! The impact of the on line forum was not so successful. We believe this to be an indication of the fact that the chosen medium itself was perhaps not as user-‐friendly as we had hoped; on the other hand, we are also inclined to believe that the lack of discussion on the discussion forum has to do with cultural factors and a tendency to upload documents rather than engage in discussion and exchange of (potentially sensitive) ideas, practices and questions, in such a public forum.

10

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Describe ways you evaluated the activities and the outcomes The activities were evaluated according to: -‐ the number of participants in each session (a total of 39 participants registered in the work sessions; of these 16 came only to the last session. Of the 39 participants, 27 were teachers, 9 students and 3 quality managers) – see DOC11; -‐ active participation in the work sessions and the online discussion forum (http://cms.ua.pt/speaq), and engagement with the issues raised *; -‐ dialogue generated with other individuals (due to the dissemination and sharing of information and results of the project); -‐ participation in the open seminar, when the results and recommendations were presented and discussed (around 30 members of the academy attended this seminar, including: students, teachers, department heads, members of the Pedagogical Council, and the vice rector for academic affairs); -‐ informal feedback registered during/after the work sessions; -‐ the answers to the final feedback form created to evaluate the activities, filled in by the participants in the sessions – see DOC 11. * All the participants contributed actively in the work sessions and outside the sessions, via email and informal encounters; 16 speaqers joined the on-‐line forum, which was only open to those who participated in the work session, and a regular posting of documents and comments was observed. This participation was, however, rather limited, and no student signed on to the forum.

How did the project address the quality assurance agenda of your institution? The quality assurance agenda in the institution is looking to consolidate the institutional quality culture by engaging different stakeholders in the quality process in the review of existing quality mechanisms and the development of these into a holistic quality assurance system which is more widely assimilated by the academic community. In addition, all higher education degrees in Portugal are under external evaluation by the National Accreditation and Evaluation Agency. This is a costly and time-‐consuming task which would be largely wasted if not put to good use in the review and reflection on the quality of the teaching and learning which is ministered by the institution and accompanied by processes of engaging teachers and students, along with those institutionally responsible, in quality assurance and enhancement. This project will undoubtedly have a valuable contribution to make to this agenda.

How did the project connect the three quality circles and with what effect?

The project brought together students, teachers and quality managers, providing an opportunity to establish common goals and pathways for reaching them, and mainly providing opportunities to improve dialogue amongst the participants. This should in turn feed into the LanQua quality circle, whereby all participants are fully aware of their role and the role of others in the teaching/learning process.

11

Where dialogue took place between the quality circles, it was with interesting results. In the next stage of the project, it will be important to build on this by engaging the institutional quality managers (who are not simultaneously teachers) and ensuring the continuing participation of students.

What were the major difficulties encountered? Major difficulties were encountered when trying to find suitable days/times for work sessions in an already overloaded agenda. Not all those who wanted to participate were able to do so on account of other engagements, and it was particularly difficult to attract and maintain students over the series of sessions. Although everyone recognised the importance of such a forum, they also recognised that it took a low priority in their institutional agenda – other meetings and bureaucratic responsibilities, for example, took priority for busy teachers; assessment tasks or extra classes often took priority for students. For these reasons, we tried to keep our forum informal, open and as un-‐bureacratised as possible, with positive results; however, it is clear that in academic settings where teachers and students feel increasingly overburdened and undervalued, such an approach may be at risk. It was also difficult to find time to fulfil our workplan which was over ambitious in that it failed to take into account how long it takes to build interpersonal relationships and establish the ‘rules’ of engagement in this kind of forum. Another major difficulty was related to the active involvement and participation in the online platform. Although our idea had been to engage someone from the group to take this task in hand, in fact, this person did not emerge, so the forum took longer than expected to appear. When it did appear, it was not particularly accessible or user-‐friendly, and participation was in general limited (see above). The participants in the Forum seemed to find face to face interaction more engaging. The continuation of the project will need to look into having a dynamic forum where experiences, practices and documents can be recorded, shared and discussed. It will also need to consider how to ensure the active participation of students in such a shared space.

What kinds of constraints or impositions affected the implementation, if any?

See above. No impositions were encountered, only time constraints.

12

DISSEMINATION Describe dissemination methods applied/envisaged and provide photos from any dissemination events, if available § Forum Speaq@UA was disseminated within the institution through the online platform and

word of mouth – participants in the forum were instructed to spread the word in their departments and amongst their colleagues and to ‘bring a friend’ to the next work session;

§ SPEAQ and its activities were presented at a local seminar on Quality enhancement on 3rd April 2013, and an international conference, entitled Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, held in Évora, Portugal on 22nd March 2013;

§ The Final Seminar held on 21st June was open to the university community, who received notification and information about the project through email;

§ Recommendations will be written up and distributed amongst teachers and students in September 2013;

§ Results of the mini-‐project will be presented to the academic community in an article (in preparation) to be submitted to an international journal, and a poster to be presented at a conference.

CONTINUATION/MULTIPLICATION/EXPLOITATION

Describe continuation/multiplication/exploitation plan, if appropriate. The project may be exploited by other national/European institutions as an example of the promotion of dialogue on quality issues amongst different members of a university community (students, staff and quality managers). The materials created, the online platform and the recommendations will serve others who in the future wish to work on quality culture through dialogue. In terms of the University of Aveiro, we believe this miniproject to be a sustainable initiative; since the interest and motivation shown by the participants indicate a significant amount of concern with quality issues in the institution and a desire to take an active role in improvement. The participants also showed an interest in continuing to participate in the project in the future, either in a similar format, or in an alternative format as long as it involves the discussion of issues related to the quality of teaching and learning. A session will be organized for September, 2013 to disseminate Forum Speaq@UA, and to relaunch the 2013/2014 edition. We also plan to write an article for a national or international journal and present a poster at a relevant conference.

13

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 1

Universidade de Aveiro

27 de fevereiro de 2013


Campus Universitátrio de Santiago

3810 193 Aveiro

Portugal

+351234370607 | [email protected]| www.speaq-project.eu

Fórum SPEAQ@UA

• SPEAQ – SHARING PRACTICE IN ENHANCING AND ASSURING QUALITY in

Higher Education

• Financiado pelo Programa Aprendizagem ao Longo de Vida, da Comissão Europeia, 2011 – 2013

• Projeto de dois anos, com 10 parceiros, coordenado pelo Centro LLAS, Universidade de Southampton

• Baseado no trabalho realizado no âmbito do Projeto LanQua (Language Network for Quality Assurance), com vista a extensão e implementação das Ferramentas de Qualidade (Quality Toolkit)

O projeto SPEAQ

O projeto SPEAQ, em todas as instituições

parceiras

Year 1: • Workshop de

sensibilização • Entrevistas com

diferentes stakeholders, sobre: – O que se entende por

‘qualidade’; – Como funcionam

processos de qualidade na instituição;

– Como se pode melhorar a qualidade da experiência de ensino-aprendizagem.

• Year 2:

• Micro-projeto

Fórum SPEAQ_UA

• falta de ligação entre processos de verificação de qualidade (indicadores, guiões de avaliação, inquéritos, etc.) e processos de melhoria de qualidade (inovação, criatividade, diálogo, etc.);

• falta de interação / colaboração entre as pessoas envolvidas nos processos de garantia e melhoria de qualidade

reconciliação entre processos formais/centrais e informais/locais de promoção da melhoria no ensino e aprendizagem

estabelecimento de um diálogo entre diferentes atores no processo e ligação entre políticas e práticas

partilha de responsabilidade para a garantia e melhoria de qualidade entre todos os intervenientes (docentes, estudantes, administradores, gestores de qualidade)

Fórum SPEAQ@UA Princípios:

• Promover a discussão de questões relacionadas com a garantia e melhoria de qualidade

• Encontrar objetivos para a melhoria do ensino e da aprendizagem partilhados por instituição, docentes e estudantes

• Identificar e compreender o papel e responsabilidades de cada um no processo da melhoria de ensino e aprendizagem

• Fortalecer o sentido de responsabilidade e empowerment dos vários atores institucionais

• Desenvolver e disponibilizar recursos e exemplos de práticas que visam a melhoria de qualidade da instituição

Fórum SPEAQ@UA Objetivos:

• Participarão no fórum um grupo de docentes, estudantes e gestores de qualidade;

• Realizar-se-ão quatro sessões de trabalho – Datas possíveis: 27 de fevereiro; 15 de março; 22 ou 26 de abril; 22 de maio;

• Após cada sessão de trabalho, será feita a divulgação dos resultados

• Dinamizar-se-á um fórum on-line

• Terá lugar no final do semestre um seminário aberto à comunidade UA - junho

Fórum SPEAQ@UA Plano de Trabalho:

• Turmas grandes vs qualidade na experiência de ensino-aprendizagem • Menos tempo em sala de aula • Pouca preparação dos estudantes • Falta de formação dos docentes • Pouca autonomia e hábitos de estudo • Falta de orientação dos cursos para o mercado de trabalho • Ausência de impacto do SGQ • Unidades curriculares muito teóricas e desatualizadas • ….

Fórum SPEAQ@UA algumas questões levantadas

• na Universidade de Aveiro: gillian moreira [[email protected]], ana raquel simões[[email protected]]; margaret gomes [[email protected]]

• SPEAQ website http://speaqproject.wordpress.com

• LanQua website www.lanqua.eu

Contactos

http://speaqproject.wordpress.com/

http://www.lanqua.eu/

Pensar e Partilhar Práticas de Qualidade no Ensino e Aprendizagem

Gostaria de contribuir para uma discussão na UA sobre a qualidade no ensino e aprendizagem?

Partilhar as suas experiências e práticas e ter acesso a novas ideias?

É professor? Gostaria de saber como os colegas lidam com os desafios pedagógicos? O que os

estudantes sentem?

É estudante? Gostaria de saber como se pode contribuir para a melhoria do ensino? Participar

numa reflexão conjunta sobre os processos de melhoria da qualidade?

Junte-se ao Fórum Speaq@UA!

Este fórum enquadra-se no projeto SPEAQ – Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring

Quality in Higher Education1, projeto com a duração de dois anos, financiado pelo Programa

Aprendizagem ao Longo de Vida, da Comissão Europeia, 2011 – 2013. Como o próprio título

sugere, este projeto visa a partilha e a melhoria de práticas que assegurem a qualidade no

ensino superior, reunindo os vários stakeholders no processo ensino/aprendizagem,

nomeadamente docentes, estudantes e gestores de qualidade, num diálogo em torno de

temas relacionados com a qualidade.

Neste âmbito, e com o objetivo de criar um espaço dinâmico de partilha de experiências que

possa contribuir com propostas concretas para uma melhoria nas práticas, estamos agora a

dar início a um fórum – Fórum Speaq@UA, que pretende:

• Promover a discussão entre diferentes stakeholders de questões relacionadas com a

garantia e melhoria de qualidade;

1 SPEAQ - Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality in Higher Education. The EU Lifelong Learning Programme (Erasmus)

Project Nº 517706-LLP-1-2011-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMGR

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 2

• Encontrar objetivos para a melhoria do ensino e da aprendizagem partilhados por

instituição, docentes e estudantes;

• Identificar e compreender o papel e responsabilidades de cada um no processo da

melhoria de ensino e aprendizagem;

• Fortalecer o sentido de responsabilidade e empowerment dos vários atores

institucionais;

• Desenvolver e disponibilizar recursos e exemplos de práticas que visam a melhoria de

qualidade da instituição

Próxima sessão: 15 de março pelas 16.00, na Sala do Senado.

1ª Tarefa: com base na sua experiência, como docente e/ou como estudante, enumerar alguns

temas que considera importantes na garantia e melhoria de qualidade de ensino e

aprendizagem.

Forum SPEAQ@UA 15 de março 2013

SPEAQ - Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality in Higher Education. The EU Lifelong Learning Programme (Erasmus) Project Nº 517706-

LLP-1-2011-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMGR This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This document reflects the views only

of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Mini fóruns …

1. O que é ensinar? / O que é aprender?

2. Programa de Tutoria-UA:

O que é? Que estratégias estão a ser utilizadas neste programa? Quais as mais valias para

os estudantes, docentes e a Universidade em geral? Quais as Unidades Orgânicas

envolvidas? Como aderir ao programa?

3. Orientação Tutorial:

Como são geridas as horas de Orientação Tutorial? O que fazem as diferentes Unidades

Orgânicas, docentes e estudantes? Como/o que “trabalhar” nestas horas para o melhor

aproveitamento para o sucesso dos estudantes?

4. Transição para o ensino superior:

Que necessidade de adequar os programas e as metodologias? Como integrar melhor os

novos estudantes (Programa de Tutoria, Acolhimento, outros)? Quais os mecanismos

disponíveis para docentes (testes diagnósticos, cursos de “nivelamento” em diferentes

UC’s, módulos 0, materiais de apoio …)? Quem os desenvolve? Qual a participação dos

estudantes?

5. Motivação e Envolvimento:

Que estratégias estão a ser implementadas para monitorizar as UCs durante o semestre,

e.g.: inquéritos intercalares, fóruns de ensino-aprendizagem, …? Como promover a

responsabilização e o envolvimento? Responsabilização (dos alunos e dos docentes): como

a promover?

6. Desenvolvimento profissional dos docentes

Que necessidades de formação sentem os docentes (em termos pedagógico-didáticos)? E

os estudantes?

7. Autonomia dos docentes/Autonomia dos estudantes

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 3

Forum SPEAQ@UA 15 de março 2013




FORUM SPEAQ@UA

Reunião do dia 15 de março de 2013

Venue: Sala do Senado (Edifício da Reitoria)

Hora: 16.00 – 18.30

Participantes (em folha anexa)

A reunião teve como objetivo identificar temas e contextos de interesse partilhado entre os docentes e

estudantes presentes.

A partir da discussão, surgiram as seguintes hipóteses de temas a trabalhar no fórum online:


2. Programa de Tutoria: o que é? Que estratégias estão a ser utilizadas neste programa? Quais as

mais valias para os estudantes, docentes e a Universidade em geral? Quais os Departamentos

envolvidos? Como envolver outros?

3. Orientação Tutorial: o que fazem os diferentes Departamentos, docentes e estudantes? Como/o

que “trabalhar” nestas horas de OT?

4. Acompanhamento/monitorização das UCs: inquérito por questionário a meio do semestre?

Utilização das TIC (por exemplo, os fóruns de ensino-aprendizagem) neste processo? Outros

mecanismos?

5. Levantamento das áreas em que os docentes sentem que carecem de formação (em termos

pedagógico-didáticos)

6. Envolvimento e Responsabilização (dos estudantes e dos docentes): como promover?

7. Transição para o ensino superior: cursos de “nivelamento” em diferentes UC’s: para combater as

desigualdades existentes a priori, de acordo com a formação de origem dos estudantes?

(cursos/módulos extra-curriculares? Quem os desenvolve? Qual a participação dos estudantes?

8. Autonomia dos estudantes / autonomia dos docentes.

A próxima sessão de trabalho terá lugar no dia 17 de abril, em formato de workshop.

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 4

Forum SPEAQ@UA 17 de abril 2013




A reunião realizada no dia 15 de março teve como objetivo identificar temas e contextos de interesse

partilhado entre os docentes e estudantes presentes. A partir da discussão, surgiram várias hipóteses

de temas a trabalhar no fórum SPEAQ@UA.

Na próxima sessão, a realizar no dia 17 de abril, propomos trabalhar problema ou problema(s)

identificados pelos intervenientes no Fórum no âmbito de um ou mais destes temas.

Temas identificados:


2. Tutoria e orientação tutorial

3. Transição para o ensino superior

4. Motivação, envolvimento e responsabilização

5. Desenvolvimento profissional dos docentes

6. Autonomia dos docentes e dos estudantes

Problema que gostaria de discutir:

Contexto(s) em que ocorre:

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 5

Forum SPEAQ@UA 17 de abril 2013




Trabalho de grupo do Fórum SPEAQ@UA

Elementos do grupo de trabalho:

Síntese das ideias discutidas relativamente ao problema abordado:

Questões ainda a trabalhar:

SPEAQ – Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality in Higher Education (Project Nº 517706-LLP-1-2011-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMGR)Disclaimer: This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This forum reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.Copyright © 2013 .

SPEAQ@UA Pensar e Partilhar Práticas de Qualidade no

Ensino e Aprendizagem

identificar problemas divulgar boas práticas

encontrar soluções

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 6

• O que é que a Bolonha mudou?• “todos fizemos Bolonha antes de Bolonha”

– Será?

• Somos o resultado das nossas experiências de vida e como alunos?– “Grandes senhores” com muitos conhecimentos!– Tarefas desafiadoras

• Desaprendemos sobre o que é aprender– aprender leva tempo, é difícil, às vezes não é divertido, … não é imediato!

• A única maneira de fazer com que os estudantes aprendam tem que ser por via da avaliação

• Formação pedagógica de docentes no ensino superior. Onde está? Na UNAVE!– É preciso adequar a formação às necessidades dos docentes (preços,

horário, oferta, …) – Oportunidades de formação às vezes são mal aproveitadas!

• Tarefas e trabalhos mais próximos ou menos próximos da área de estudo – fator de motivação ou desmotivação?

• Orientação para o imediato … “todos somos orientados igualmente para o imediato” Até na comunicação …

• O professor pode saber muito mas não saber ensinar/comunicar – Os docentes às vezes não são motivados para ensinar!

• O interesse dos estudantes é fundamental – “não podemos dar a mesma disciplina a diferentes cursos”

• Efeito perverso do SGQ – em vez de contribuir para a melhoria, pode desmotivar o docente

• A instituição tem que reconhecer a qualidade do ensino – como? Prémio(s)?– Porque pensamos que não somos valorizados como docentes?– O docente não sabe o que é esperado dele/a

• Metodologias inovadoras – PBL? O PBL funciona para todos?• O que os nossos estudantes sabem à entrada do ensino superior?

– Diagnóstica? Competências prévias? Hábitos de estudo / aprendizagem? – Ajustamento / negociação dos programas / avaliação / – Módulos de apoio (grátis? Voluntário? Obrigatório?)– Acompanhamento, apoio, … � voltamos outra vez a Tutoria!

• O que sabemos dos nossos estudantes quando entram na instituição? – Opções, hábitos, interesses … convivências…

• Avaliação novamente:– Que tipo(s) de avaliação? – Quem decide? Quem avalia? – “conta para a nota?”– O que pode ser avaliado?

• Bolonha = turmas pequenas, boa relação docente – estudante, menos tempo na sala de aula, enfoque no trabalho autónomo, organização de trabalho por ECTS …contabilização do trabalho realizado pelo estudante– Quantos estudantes por turma é o ideal?– Quantas horas presenciais?

• O estudante sabe o que é esperado dele? E o docente … sabe o que se pretende?

• Qual é a missão da universidade? “Nos não sabemos o que fazemos” �• A motivação é necessária, mas será que chegue? • Gestão de tempo … cumprimento dos ects / unidade curricular;

organização do tempo e do estudo; saber estudar sem ser em sala de aula• Articulação ensino e investigação • Para que é que serve o ensino secundário?

– E um 1º ciclo? E um 2º ciclo?

• Como é que a instituição divulga os cursos? Que conhecimentos pede aos novos estudantes? Como é que explica os cursos aos estudantes quando começam o seu percurso?

• Diversificar as estratégias de ensino o máximo possível • E o que são metodologias ativas??

1

WORKSHOP de 17 de maio de 2013

Presenças: (Folha em anexo)

Local: Sala de Reuniões do Departamento de Educação

Hora: 16.00 – 18.00

1ª parte do workshop: Apresentação da Maria João Loureiro1 (MJL): “Assessment as a strategy

to promote teaching and learning quality in blended contexts” (powerpoint enviado por email)

2ª parte da workshop: Discussão conjunta

Algumas das ideias discutidas:

MJL apresentou um conjunto de casos em que tem trabalhado, em diferentes níveis de ensino

e em diferentes UC’s e contextos, onde a avaliação surge como forma de promoção da

qualidade do ensino. Nos casos apresentados utilizaram-se diferentes ferramentas

tecnológicas/digitais (desde o Moodle, Ning, blogues, facebook,….). Chamou a atenção para a

importância de a literatura dar indicações da mais valia da utilização das Tecnologias no Ensino

Superior e suas potencialidades.

Nos casos referidos pela MJL:

- os alunos são avaliados pela própria intervenção nas ferramentas digitais usadas na UC, quer

no que se refere à quantidade, quer à qualidade das interações produzidas;

- o trabalho de pares é muito importante, já que são os alunos que também avaliam o trabalho

dos colegas depois de um momento inicial em que o professor tem de estar mais “presente”;

- pode ser importante que no final do 1.º mês se publique uma avaliação do que tem ocorrido

a nível online, de forma a que os alunos sintam o feedback e possam alterar comportamento.

1 Departamento de Educação; Centro de Investigação “Didática e Tecnologia na Formação de

Formadores”

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 7

2

No caso do colega Pedro Mantas2:

- os alunos NÃO são avaliados pela intervenção nas ferramentas digitais usadas na UC, o que

não tem impedido a sua participação;

- têm sido usadas ferramentas digitais em casos de UC’s com 30 alunos ou com 100/200, pelo

que é possível realizar um trabalho deste tipo, adaptando-o ao contexto em causa.

Questões discutidas:

- Como avaliar o impacto deste tipo de atividade? Não sendo possível demostrar o impacto

destas atividades nas aprendizagens dos estudantes utilizando métodos estatísticos, foram

discutidas outras formas de avaliar o seu sucesso.

- Importância da familiaridade dos estudantes e dos docentes com as ferramentas utilizadas.

- Ponderar familiaridade com utilização mais “científica”, por exemplo no caso do Facebook,

que serve sobretudo propósitos de sociabilização e que pode também trazer mais dificuldade

na categorização de dados por parte do professor, já que os dados/comentários não aparecem

“compartimentados”, tal como acontece, por exemplo, num fórum.

- Importância da avaliação por pares, que não causará constrangimentos se ela própria

também for avaliada) sobretudo para o desenvolvimento de capacidades críticas e de

questionamento dos estudantes e o seu envolvimento na sua própria aprendizagem.

- Possibilidade de adaptar algumas das metodologias que correntemente usamos, segundo as

TIC, de forma a não ter de se repetir a mesma informação (por exemplo, uma colega

apresentou a modalidade que já utilizou em que cada grupo depois da realização do seu

trabalho de grupo tinha de levar uma questão para cada um dos grupos).

- A mais-valia da utilização dos fóruns na promoção da interação entre estudantes e com o

docente num contexto de reduzidas horas de contacto em sala de aula.

2 Departamento de Cerâmica e Vidro

Programa:Problemas

Boas práticas

Soluções

Ideias

Workshop: Pensar e Partilhar Práticas de Qualidade no Ensino e AprendizagemAuditório da Livraria da Universidade de Aveiro

21 de junho

9.30 O Projeto SPEAQ e o Fórum SPEAQ@UA ( http://cms.ua.pt/speaq/)

Breve apresentação do projeto e os seus resultadosProf. Gillian Moreira, Prof. Ana Raquel Simões & Prof. Margaret Gomes

10.00 E-Tutoring

Sessão dinamizada pelo Prof. Antonio Moreira (DE)

11.00 Coffee break

11.15 O Programa de Tutoria - UA: balanço e perspetivas futuras Prof. Paulo Lima & Marcelo Guerra

12.00 Outras iniciativas para a melhoria da qualidade do ensino e

aprendizagem

12.30 Considerações finais

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 8

Workshop

Gillian Moreira, Ana Raquel Simões & Margaret Gomes


21 junho de 2013


O Projeto SPEAQ e o Fórum SPEAQ@UA

SPEAQ – Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality in Higher Education (Project Nº 517706-LLP-1-2011-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMGR) Disclaimer: This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This forum reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Copyright © 2013 .

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 9

SHARING PRACTICE IN ENHANCING AND ASSURING QUALITY in Higher Education

Instituições parceiras

University of Aveiro (Portugal)

Babes-Bolyai University (Romania)

Copenhagen Business School

(Denmark)

Deusto University (Spain)

European Students Union (Belgium)

Innsbruck University (Austria)

University of Jyväskalä (Finland)

Szged University (Hungary)

University of Trento (Italy)

SPEAQ – Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality in Higher Education (Project Nº 517706-LLP-1-2011-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMGR) Disclaimer: This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This forum reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein Copyright © 2013 .

Projeto Nº 517706-LLP-1-2011-1-

UK-ERASMUS-EMGR [Programa

Aprendizagem ao Longo de Vida]

outubro 2011 – setembro 2013

baseado no trabalho realizado no

âmbito do Projeto LanQua

(Language Network for Quality

Assurance), com vista a extensão e

implementação das Ferramentas de

Qualidade (The LanQua Toolkit

www.lanqua.eu )

http://www.lanqua.eu/



Objetivos: Ligar os três círculos de qualidade: docentes, estudantes e gestores de qualidade para melhorar a qualidade no ensino superior Promover interação e diálogo entre os diferentes grupos que participam nos processos de garantia e melhoria da qualidade, estabelecendo uma abordagem colaborativa na identificação e resolução de problemas, maior envolvimento no processo de qualidade, e, em geral, melhor comunicação sobre a qualidade em instituições de ensino superior.

SPEAQ website:




SPEAQ – Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality in Higher Education (Project Nº 517706-LLP-1-2011-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMGR) Disclaimer: This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This forum reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held r esponsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein Copyright © 2013 .

“Quality, for it to become part of the lived experience of all stakeholders in higher education, needs to become a fundamental part of what is done in the sector. A genuine culture of quality is necessary. However, there is always a tension between quality as ritual and quality as it is owned by its stakeholders.”

Harvey & Williams (2010:4)

“There are a variety of ‘stakeholders’ in higher education, including students, employers,

teaching and non-teaching staff, government and its funding agencies, accreditors, validators, auditors, and assessors (including professional bodies)… Each have a different perspective on quality. This is not a different perspective on the same thing but different perspectives on different things with the same label.” Harvey & Green (1993: 10)

• Linear e não-linear

• Interdependente

• Múltiplos pontos de partida

• Percursos diversificados

• Enfoque no ensino e na aprendizagem

O Ciclo de Qualidade


Programa de atividades do SPEAQ, em todas as instituições parceiras

Year 1 [2011/2012]:

• Workshop de sensibilização

• Entrevistas com diferentes stakeholders, sobre: – O que se entende por

‘qualidade’;

– Como funcionam processos de qualidade na instituição;

– Como se pode melhorar a qualidade da experiência de ensino-aprendizagem.

• Year 2 [2012/2012]:

• Desenvolvimento de um micro-projeto

Na Universidade de Aveiro:

Fórum SPEAQ@UA


O que é a qualidade?

Disclaimer: This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This presentation reflects the views only of the

authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

ESTUDANTES: - Boas condições - Professores com boa formação - Boa organização curricular - Empregabilidade

DOCENTES: -Satisfação pessoal e profissional - A qualidade é relacionada com a motivação, métodos de estudo e autonomia dos estudantes -Boas condições -Boa rácio entre estudantes e professores no SGQ - - Qualidade pessoal depende da motivação pessoal

GESTOR QUALIDADE: -Reflexão permanente sobre a melhoria no ensino/aprendizagem - Todos os stakeholders são importantes

PONTOS COMUNS (todos): - Q depende do reconhecimento externo da qualidade da instituição e do curso; e.g. rankings nacionais / internacionais - UCs e planos de estudo devem ser transparentes e coerentes (E & D): - Q é externa ao indivíduo - Q depende das condições de trabalho: responsabilidade da instituição? (E & GQ) boas relações interpessoais


Como é que a qualidade funciona na sua instituição?



ESTUDANTES: - Conversas informais (com colegas / docentes) - Não são ouvidos com a exceção do SGQ - Desconhecem os órgãos responsáveis pela qualidade na instituição

DOCENTES: -A qualidade é avaliada e acreditada externamente - Demasiada ênfase no SGQ - Indicadores de qualidade não são necessariamente sinónimos de qualidade - Qualidade pessoal depende da motivação pessoal

GESTOR QUALIDADE: - Q é parte integrante da estrutura da instituição e das suas responsabilidades externas - GQ = uma peça pequena de um puzzle (grande) - Recolhe informação para que outros possam contribuir para a qualidade PONTOS COMUNS

(E & D ): - As dimensões institucional e informal da qualidade são separados - o SGQ não resulta automaticamente em melhoria da qualidade - as suas vozes são ouvidas mas não são seguidas por ações


Como é que a qualidade pode ser melhorada?



ESTUDANTES: - Qualidade deveria ser mais visível a nível interno - Mais iniciativa por parte dos estudantes - Formação dos professores DOCENTES:

Melhor implementação dos processos ligados à qualidade

GESTOR QUALIDADE: --Mais apoio técnico e profissional para assegurar a melhoria da qualidade - Mais e melhor comunicação entre os vários agentes

PONTOS COMUNS (Todos): - Mais diálogo entre os stakeholders para partilhar ideias e discutir boas práticas - Mais atividades para apoiar o desenvolvimento de uma cultura de qualidade, e.g. workshops e mesas redondas (E & D): -Ensino mais virado para o mercado de trabalho - Mais voz na garantia da qualidade




Em conclusão: - Existe uma falta de ligação entre as práticas formais da instiutuição e as

informais da sala de aula em relação a assegurar e melhorar a qualidade - Deveria haver mais diálogo entre os vários stakeholders no ensino superior e

todos deveriam ser ouvidos - A dinamização de atividades que visam a melhoria da qualidade são

essenciais para o desenvolvimento de uma cultura interna de qualidade .



Fórum SPEAQ@UA Princípios: -falta de ligação entre processos de verificação de qualidade (indicadores, guiões de avaliação, inquéritos, etc.) e processos de melhoria de qualidade (inovação, criatividade, diálogo, etc.); -falta de interação / colaboração entre as pessoas envolvidas nos processos de garantia e melhoria de qualidade

reconciliação entre processos formais/centrais e informais/locais de promoção da melhoria no ensino e aprendizagem estabelecimento de um diálogo entre diferentes atores no processo e ligação entre políticas e práticas partilha de responsabilidade para a garantia e melhoria de qualidade entre todos os intervenientes (docentes, estudantes, administradores, gestores de qualidade)



Fórum SPEAQ@UA Objetivos:

•Promover a discussão de questões relacionadas com a garantia e melhoria de qualidade •Encontrar objetivos para a melhoria do ensino e da aprendizagem partilhados por instituição, docentes e estudantes •Identificar e compreender o papel e responsabilidades de cada um no processo da melhoria de ensino e aprendizagem •Desenvolver e disponibilizar recursos e exemplos de práticas que visam a melhoria de qualidade da instituição

Fórum SPEAQ@UA Sessão 1

27 de fevereiro

• Apresentação e Plano de Trabalho

SPEAQ – Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality in Higher Education (Project Nº 517706-LLP-1-2011-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMGR) Disclaimer: This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This forum reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Copyright © 2013 .

http://cms.ua.pt/speaq/


15 de março Temas identificados: 1. O que é ensinar? / O que é aprender? 2. Programa de Tutoria-UA O que é o PT-UA? Que estratégias estão a ser utilizadas neste programa? Quais as mais valias para os estudantes, docentes e a Universidade em geral? Quais as Unidades Orgânicas envolvidas? Como aderir ao programa? 3. Orientação Tutorial Como são geridas as horas de Orientação Tutorial? O que fazem as diferentes Unidades Orgânicas, docentes e estudantes? Como/o que “trabalhar” nestas horas para o melhor aproveitamento para o sucesso dos estudantes? 4. Transição para o ensino superior Como integrar melhor os novos estudantes (Programa de Tutoria, Acolhimento, outros)? Quais os mecanismos disponíveis para docentes (testes diagnósticos, cursos de “nivelamento” em diferentes UC’s, módulos 0, materiais de apoio …)? Quem os desenvolve? Qual a participação dos estudantes?




15 de março 5. Motivação e Envolvimento Que estratégias estão a ser implementadas para monitorizar as UCs durante o semestre, e.g.: inquéritos intercalares, fóruns de ensino-aprendizagem, …? Como promover a responsabilização e o envolvimento? Responsabilização (dos estudantes e dos docentes): como a promover? 6. Desenvolvimento profissional dos docentes Que necessidades de formação sentem os docentes (em termos pedagógico-didáticos)? E os estudantes? 7. Autonomia dos docentes/Autonomia dos estudantes SPEAQ@UA Pensar e Partilhar Práticas de Qualidade no Ensino e Aprendizagem






17 de abril

identificar problemas divulgar boas práticas

encontrar soluções

SPEAQ@UA Pensar e Partilhar Práticas de Qualidade no

Ensino e Aprendizagem




17 de abril

• O que é que a Bolonha mudou? • O que é aprender? • O que é ensinar? • Motivação dos docentes • Motivação dos estudantes • O que os nossos estudantes sabem à

entrada nos nossos cursos? • O que sabemos sobre os nossos

estudantes quando entram na UA? • Como é que a UA promove a

qualidade dos seus cursos?

• Metodologias inovadoras? • O papel de avaliação nos processos de

aprendizagem • Formação pedagógica de docentes; que

necessidades? • Incentivos, condições, valorização da

atividade docente • Efeito perverso do SGQ • “não podemos dar a mesma disciplina a

diferentes cursos” • Diagnóstica? Competências prévias? Hábitos

de estudo / aprendizagem? • Ajustamento / negociação dos programas /

avaliação / • Flexibilidade nas formações, competências

transversais • Módulos de apoio (grátis? Voluntário?

Obrigatório?) • Acompanhamento, apoio, … • Opções, hábitos, interesses … • Divulgação , promoção, auto-avaliação,

SPEAQ – Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality in Higher Education (Project Nº 517706-LLP-1-2011-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMGR) Disclaimer: This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This forum reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Copyright © 2013 .


assessment as a strategy to promote teaching and learning quality in

blended contexts

Maria João Loureiro

CIDTTF, DE


17 de maio



Workshop

Gillian Moreira, Ana Raquel Simões & Margaret Gomes


21 junho de 2013


O Projeto SPEAQ e o Fórum SPEAQ@UA


• Referências

ENQA (2005). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Available : http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/Standards-and-Guidelines-for-QA.pdf

Harvey, L. & Green, D. (1993). ‘Defining Quality’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. An International

Journal. 18 (1). Harvey, L. & Williams, J. (2010). ‘Fifteen Years of Quality in Higher Education’. Quality in Higher Education. 16(1). Report on progress in quality assurance in higher education, 2009 – available:

http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/report09_en.pdf Focus on Higher Education in Europe 2010, the Impact of the Bologna Process, Eurydice Available: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/122EN.pdf EQAR (European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education), Annual report

2009http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/2010_conference/documents/EQAR_Annual_Report_2009.pdf

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/Standards-and-Guidelines-for-QA.pdf









http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/report09_en.pdf




Disclaimer: This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This document reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Copyright © 2013 .

SPEAQ – Sharing Practice in Enhancing and Assuring Quality in Higher

Education (Project Nº 517706-LLP-1-2011-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMGR)

Agradecemos que nos dê feedback acerca da sua participação no Mini-Projeto Fórum Speaq@UA.

1. Foram realizadas 5 sessões no âmbito do mini-projeto Fórum Speaq@UA. Indique, com

uma cruz, aquelas em que participou:

27 de fevereiro (Sala de aula no DEGEI: Apresentação/Brainstorming)

15 de março (Sala do Senado: Definição de temas)

17 de abril (Sala de Tradução: ‘Workshop’/Discussão de tópicos)

17 de maio (Sala de Reuniões: DE – Apresentação da M.J.Loureiro et al. i/ Discussão)

21 de junho (Auditoria da Livraria: Sessão de balanço/Tutoria(s) ii)

Não me lembro, mas participei numa sessão

Não me lembro, mas participei em mais que uma sessão

2. Gostou das sessões em que participou? Porquê?

3. O que o/a levou a participar neste mini-projeto?

4. Se participou em mais que uma sessão, por favor responda às seguintes perguntas:

4.1 Qual foi a sessão que gostou mais, e porquê?

4.2 Descreva a sessão que considerou mais produtiva.

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 10




5. Qual foi o tema ou temas que gostou mais de ver discutido? Porquê?

6. Que sugestões faria para o enriquecimento e melhoria deste projeto?

7. Apresente a sua opinião sobre as seguintes afirmações, utilizando a escala:

1 – Discordo fortemente│ 2 – Discordo │ 3 – Concordo │ 4 – Concordo fortemente

1 2 3 4

7.1 É importante que docentes, estudantes e gestores partilhem experiências para melhorar a qualidade no ensino superior.

7.2 A minha participação neste projeto permitiu-me refletir sobre as práticas de gestão da qualidade no processo ensino-aprendizagem.

7.3 A minha participação neste projeto fez-me pensar no meu papel no processo ensino-aprendizagem.

7.4 A minha participação neste projeto vai permitir que eu tome medidas no meu dia-a-dia para melhorar a experiência de ensino-aprendizagem.

7.5 A minha participação neste projeto permitiu-me discutir questões que considero importantes com outros intervenientes no processo de ensino-aprendizagem.

7.6 A minha participação neste projeto permitiu-me tomar medidas no meu dia-a-dia para melhorar a experiência de ensino-aprendizagem.

8. O mini-projeto SPEAQ@UA cumpriu as suas expectativas? Porquê?

9. Gostaria de continuar a participar em iniciativas do mesmo género no futuro? Porquê?




9.1 Se respondeu que sim, em que formato e sobre que temas?

i assessment as a strategy to promote teaching and learning quality in blended contexts. M.J.Loureiro, et

al., CIDTTF, Universidade de Aveiro. Maio, 2013. ii E-tutoring, A.Moreira, CIDTTF, Universidade de Aveiro. Junho, 2013.

Estudar na Universidade de Aveiro – Acolhimento, Integração e Acompanhamento do Novo Estudante. P.Lima & M.Guerra. Conselho Pedagógico, Universidade de Aveiro. Junho, 2013.

Attendance and Feedback

I: Attendance at the Sessions

As planned, Speaq Forum@UA held five work sessions, one each month from February to June, 2013. A total of 42 teachers, students and quality managers took part in one or more of the sessions. Of the 42 participants, 29 were teachers, 9 were students and 4 were quality managers (see Fig. 1) – the quality managers involved are also teachers. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the participants across the different sessions; this participation, although fairly low was stable, and the Forum gathered new participants in each session despite the fact that not all participants could attend all sessions on account of other commitments. This was particularly true of the students, who, although enthusiastic about the idea and active in the sessions they attended, did not attend regularly.

12 participants came to 3 or more sessions; 16 came only to the last (dissemination) session.

Fig. 1 Participants in Forum Speaq@UA Fig. 2 Participants in Sessions

II: General Overview of responses to the feedback questionnaires

We received 10 completed feedback forms.

1. Of the ten respondents, 4 had attended one (the final) session, 4 had attended four sessions and 2 had come to all five.

2. The general feelings in relation to the mini-‐project are overwhelmingly positive. Most respondents attended most of the sessions and enjoyed participating in them because it allowed them to understand what was going on in the institution as regards quality/teaching/learning, which they felt to be very

T, 29

STS, 9

QM, 4

total parEcipants

T

STS

QM

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5

parEcipants per session

lig

Typewritten Text

DOC 11

important in an academic setting. It was also important to see things both from the teachers’ and the students’ point of view as well as to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the university. The sessions were dynamic and the on-‐line forum allowed interaction at the click of a button.

3. In relation to the reasons why they had participated in the project, some had been asked to, or felt they

should because of their positions as quality managers, and others participated because the topic interested them. The fact is that most people came to more than one session and welcomed the opportunity to discuss issues related to teaching/learning which concerned them, including talking about different approaches and exchanging suggestions on how to improve the teaching/learning process.

4. i. As regards the sessions the participants most enjoyed, two people mentioned the last session because it provided an overview of the whole project but two others mentioned the first two sessions because they ‘got the ball rolling’. One person also referred to the session on 17th May (Session 4) because they found the use of digital tools interesting.

ii. When it comes to the sessions the respondents found the most productive, different people chose different sessions, but they all emphasised the importance of discussion and reflection in the teaching/learning process. One respondent mentioned that the effects of these sessions will only be seen later on.

5. When asked about which topics were most interesting to discuss, some said that they found all the topics interesting and that they all contributed to the ‘bigger picture’. The use of digital tools and tutoring/e-‐tutoring was mentioned as an area of interest, as well as the definition of teaching/learning.

6. When asked about possible improvements to the project, suggestions included the involvement of Heads of Department, discussion in smaller groups and summaries of previous sessions (although they were sent out via email before subsequent sessions), prioritising the setting of objectives and concrete work plans, communication via technology, teacher development and more student involvement. It was suggested that there should be more dissemination of the sessions to ensure measures are taken by superiors. It was also suggested that the project should be taken up again in September in order to create a link between the sessions and good practice.

7. The questions where participants had to agree/disagree with a number of statements:

• All respondents agreed or agreed strongly that it was important that teachers, students and quality managers shared experiences in order to improve quality in higher education.

• 89% agreed or agreed strongly that their participation in this project allowed them to reflect upon quality management practices in the teaching/learning process.

• All respondents agreed or agreed strongly that their participation in this project made them think about their role in the teaching/learning process.

• In the question related to whether their participation in this project will enable them to take measures in their everyday teaching to improve the teaching/learning experience, 75% agreed or agreed strongly with the statement.

• All respondents agreed or agreed strongly that their participation in this project allowed them to discuss issues which they felt are relevant with other stakeholders in the teaching/learning process.

• Finally, 75% agreed or agreed strongly that their participation in this project allowed them to take measures in their everyday teaching to improve the teaching/learning experience.

8. Overall, participants felt it was important to discuss issues of quality in their institution and that this project created a platform for that. The extent to which participants were able to reflect upon and make changes to the teaching/learning process varied from person to person. However, the responses clearly indicate that this is an issue which should and needs to be discussed in order to improve the standard of teaching/learning. However, some believe that this will only happen if measures are taken at a higher level.

9. Participants had either very few expectations or very high expectations but the overall impact was generally positive, and it was felt that it was important to keep working and bring visibility to this issue. Most people feel it’s important to continue organising more initiatives of this kind in order to enhance the quality of the teaching/learning, increase motivation and improve internal processes, because these are issues which are not often discussed at this level, and involvement of the various stakeholders may help to improve the quality of the teaching/learning.

9.1 As regards the shape these sessions would take, suggestions included analysing other ongoing projects, encouraging involvement from all stakeholders (especially students, who can make concrete suggestions so that their point of view can be better understood) and perhaps smaller informal group discussions with summaries of the work done so far because there is still a lot of work to be done in the area. There is an obvious desire to continue bringing the various stakeholders together with a view to sharing opinions and enhancing practices in higher education. Participants would also like to see the development of concrete suggestions to implement in the classroom, more emphasis on the nature of mixed theory and practice classes, the assessment used in the curricular units, tutorials, and the assessment students make of the curricular units. One other suggestion involved sessions which would take the following format: Workshop-‐Seminar-‐Public Presentation, to discuss pedagogical good practices, contact with quality managers and the analysis of what happens at other European institutions.