By Fiona Hunter. Many of us in the field of higher education have long-standing experience in our fields of expertise but are still relatively new to the concept of strategic planning, especially when this involves the whole institution. How might we define strategic planning with regards to international education, and what needs to happen within the institution if ambitious goals for internationalisation are to be realised? Although it is shaped by the past and the present, strategic planning is a process that is oriented towards the future. It looks at the world in 5–10 years from now and seeks to shape future events rather than be dictated to by them. It links past, present and future by ensuring staff understand how history has shaped their institution, reflecting honestly on where the institution is now and the factors that affect it, and considering future objectives and how to achieve them. Read more...
If you are new to Open Educational Resources (OERs), you could qualify for an HEA-sponsored place at OER13, a conference showcasing Open Practice. Open Practice is a growing, global movement in higher education involving major international institutions such as MIT, Harvard and Stanford. In the UK, numerous OER projects have been supported successfully by the UKOER programme run jointly by the HEA and Jisc. The HEA is encouraging further growth of the Open Practice community by sponsoring new-to-OER HE staff to learn more about this exciting development in open academic practice at OER13. OER13 takes place at the University of Nottingham on 26 and 27 March and the HEA is funding a set number of places. For more information and to apply for a free place visit the event page of the HEA website. OERs are part of a growing, global Open Practice movement in higher education involving major international institutions such as MIT, Harvard and Stanford. In the UK, numerous OER projects have been supported by the UKOER programme run jointly by the Higher Education Academy and Jisc. The Higher Education Academy would like to support the growth of the OER and Open Practice community by encouraging UK academic and professional higher education staff who have had no engagement with OERs to find out more about this movement. OER13 is a conference taking place at the University of Nottingham on 26th & 27th March 2013 which will showcase Open Practice projects (http://www.oer13.org). The Conference programme will consist of an engaging mix of keynote presentations, refereed papers and posters exploring the impact of OER on HE within the conference themes. The Higher Education Academy is funding a scheme which will provide the conference fees for OER13 to HE staff who are new to OERs i.e. those staff involved in delivering HE who have neither been engaged in OERs nor previously funded as part of the UKOER programme and who do not have a paper accepted for OER13.
Expolangues au rendez-vous! The biggest language-related event in France celebrates “Digital technology for language learning”. For its 31st edition, Expolangues focuses on new technologies and language learning. The European Commission and other institutions propose a rich overview of study and career opportunities in which languages play a significant role, as well as practical information on where and how to study and practice foreign languages in Europe. Come and visit our stands at Expolangues 2013 and get an insight of how interpreters and translators work! Download the Programme. Expolangues célèbre le « numérique au service des langues » À cette occasion, seront mobilisés les acteurs clés des nouvelles technologies et de l'enseignement des langues le jeudi 7 février autour du colloque « Numérique: rendre l'apprentissage des langues accessible à tous » qui réunira les experts du marché, chercheurs, sociologues, éditeurs, enseignants... Consultez cet événement. Maîtriser le français et une langue étrangère font partie des connaissances indispensables à la réussite scolaire et à l’insertion professionnelle. Si aujourd’hui l’école est au cœur des préoccupations gouvernementales, c’est parce que ces savoirs ne sont pas acquis par 50% des élèves, dès le primaire! Comment lutter contre ces lacunes? Comment les résorber au cours de sa scolarité puis de sa vie professionnelle? Les solutions passent inexorablement par le numérique. A l’heure des smartphones, des tablettes, des tableaux blancs interactifs… Comment concevoir l’enseignement des langues sans eux? Au-delà des transformations pédagogiques, c’est aussi la relation espace-temps qui doit être repensé. L’apprentissage des langues ne se fait plus exclusivement dans la classe. Les langues se pratiquent dans les transports en commun, chez soi ou encore à l’étranger. Fort des expériences concrètes menées par les acteurs de l’enseignement et de la formation professionnelle nous répondrons à ces questions avec eux mais aussi des représentants d’institutions publiques françaises et étrangères (instituts, collectivités territoriales, médias...)
Quality assurance procedures in the processes of certification, curricula setting, accreditation and training of trainers in European VET systems - 9. France Information Gathering Exercise Quality assurance procedures in the processes of certification, curricula setting, accreditation and training of trainers in European VET systems IV. The results of the scrutiny of information already available The main results of this study are presented in two parts: the first part, the “Matrix”, presents the results in a table format, using the “codes” presented below; the second part is the set of “Country Cards”, which function as endnotes for each Member State, where some summary explanations are given as answers to the questions raised in the matrix... 9. France 1. Assessment, validation and recognition of the learning outcomes – existence of mechanisms for formal and non-formal/informal contexts: 1.1. Who is responsible for assessment, validation and recognition of the learning outcomes? The ministries responsible for initial and continuous vocational education are mainly those responsible for school education, higher education and employment. Other ministries are also involved (Agriculture, Health, Sports etc. for their specific area). For IVET – the Ministry for National Education is responsible for initial vocational education at secondary level. (Some other ministries also have responsibilities in IVET, such as the Ministry of Agriculture that is similarly responsible for professional agricultural training. The Ministry of Higher Education is responsible for Higher education.) In this context the law has assigned to the Ministry of Education several duties: – it draws up vocational diplomas/qualifications in consultation with professional bodies. (Vocational diplomas/qualifications issued by the Ministry of National Education are national and are worth the same whether they are acquired in initial education – IVET (schoolbased scheme or apprenticeship), through CVET or by a validation of professional experience. They are registered in the Répertoire National des Certifications Professionnelles (National Directory of Professional Certifications), – it sets exam rules, – it awards diplomas, – it offers a range of courses to pupils and on-the-job apprentices, – it recruits, trains and pays teachers, – it monitors the quality of training, – it is accountable for the results and the resources used. For IVET and CVET – the Regions (regional governments) define and implement the regional policies of vocational training, for young people and for adults. The French Regions are regional authorities that are run by elected officials. Their remit is to plan and ensure the coherence of vocational training in their geographical area. Within this remit, they set out their policies according to their economic and social priorities, in consultation with the State and social partners. As such they draw up the regional plans for developing vocational training which set out, in the medium term, in their geographical area, a coherent programme for developing courses of study for young people and adults. They also fund certain schemes for these groups according to their priorities. They are responsible for the construction, upkeep and facilities of upper secondary schools (lycées) as well as the funding of school transport. For CVET – the Ministry for Economy, Industry and Employment is responsible for national regulation concerning vocational training for adults as well as for young people in the labour market. The validation of non-formal and informal learning can lead in whole or in part, to a diploma, a title or certificate of professional qualification entered in the National Directory of Professional Certifications. 1.2. Where does the decision making regarding assessment, validation and recognition of the learning outcomes lie? For IVET, concerning the Ministry of Education and its vocational diplomas/qualifications: the ministry is responsible for designing its qualifications/vocational diplomas – in consultation with professional bodies – and for designing the assessment, validation, recognition/certification process and procedures. Within this framework, training providers (with companies for alternate schemes such as apprenticeship) deliver training provision leading to vocational diplomas/qualifications. The training providers proceed to assessment, juries involving VET experts and professional bodies proceed to validation. The ministry is responsible for recognition/certification: it delegates this final task to Rectors of Academies, who are at the head of the regional education authorities. For CVET, process and procedures depend on different aspects: CVET can be delivered in order to gain a diploma, a title or certificate of professional qualification entered in the National Directory of Professional Certifications: the structures that produce those certifications include the Ministry of Education, of Higher Education, of Health, Sports, Agriculture, and also many other bodies. But CVET can also be delivered to adults who wish to gain competences that do not lead to certifications. Procedures will vary, depending on the aim of CVET and on the structures that produce certifications. 1.3. How are the stakeholders involved in the decision making process? Stakeholders include the State through ministries, the social partners and the economic world and the Regions. All those actors collaborate at different levels: For IVET and CVET – at national level for the cooperation between stakeholders concerning VET policies: the National Council for Vocational Lifelong Learning. This Council also produces studies and reports. For qualifications recognised by the State – at national level: the National Commission for Professional Qualifications (CNCP). The commission is composed of ministries, social partners, Regions; its role is to manage the National Directory of Professional Certifications, to inform people, to check the complementarity of certifications. -- For IVET and CVET – at national level for the creation of qualifications: Professional Consultative Commissions. Vocational diplomas/qualifications are drawn up and regularly reviewed in consultation with the professional and economical world in the framework of national bodies called «Consultative professional committees» (Commissions Professionnelles Consultatives). These committees are compulsory and enable consultation for the creation and renewal of qualifications and for the definition of the contents of qualification, including the definition of learning outcomes. -- For IVET – at national level for the deliverance of training: the economic world also intervenes in the training deliverance since IVET relies on alternate schemes. IVET is delivered through apprenticeship but also through the school-based system which includes compulsory training periods in enterprises. -- For IVET – at national level for the validation process: the economic world also intervenes in the validation process through the participation of professionals on juries. -- For IVET – at regional level – regional employment and vocational training co-ordination committees (CCREFP) allow coordination and discussions between the stakeholders involved in VET in order to jointly intervene in scopes linked to employment and VET policies (state representatives, regional assemblies, management and labour organisations – social partners – and regional consular chambers: agriculture, trade and commerce and industry). -- For IVET – at regional level – the French regions must plan and ensure the coherence of vocational training in their geographical area. Within this remit, they set out their policies according to their economic and social priorities, in consultation with the State and the social partners, taking into account the regional employment and vocational training co-ordination committees. As such, Regions draw up the regional plans for developing vocational training which set out, in the medium term, in their geographical area, a coherent programme for developing courses of study for young people and adults. The work should lead to contracts (Contrats de Plan Régionaux de Développement des Formations Professionnelles) signed between Regions and the State. -- For CVET – at national level – the National Joint Committee for Vocational Training is in charge of ensuring that continuing vocational training’s agreements are duly applied. -- For CVET – at sector level- the National Joint Employment Commissions and the National Interprofessional Agreements (the most recent one, from 2009, focused on vocational lifelong learning). -- For CVET – at regional level – regional employment and vocational training co-ordination committees (CCREFP) allow coordination and discussions between the stakeholders involved in VET in order to jointly intervene in scopes linked to employment and VET policies (state representatives, regional assemblies, management and labour organisations – social partners – and regional consular chambers: agriculture, trade and commerce and industry). -- For CVET – at regional level – the French regions must plan and ensure the coherence of vocational training in their geographical area. Within this remit, they set out their policies according to their economic and social priorities, in consultation with the State and social partners, taking into account the regional employment and vocational training co-ordination committees. As such, Regions draw up the regional plans for developing vocational training which set out, in the medium term, in their geographical area, a coherent programme for developing courses of study for young people and adults. The work should lead to contracts (Contrats de Plan Régionaux de Développement des Formations Professionnelles) signed between Regions and the State. 2. Curricula setting: 2.1. Is the curriculum based on standards and/or frameworks? For IVET – for the qualifications of the State, including those of the ministry of Education), the national curriculum is based on the framework of the State. For CVET – the frameworks are defined at sectoral, regional and local levels. 2.2. Levels of actions: 2.2.1. Where does the decision making regarding standards and/or frameworks lie? For IVET, at national level – the Ministry of National Education regarding secondary education. 2.2.2. Where does the decision making regarding curriculum development lie? For IVET, at national level – the Ministry of National Education regarding secondary education. For CVET – at provider level. 2.3. Is the curriculum based on National Qualification Frameworks (NQF)? Yes – for the curricula developed to obtain a certification registered in the National Directory of Professional Certifications. 2.4. Is the curriculum based on competencies? Yes – for IVET and CVET. 2.5. Is a credits system in place? If we consider that credits systems refer to ECVET or ECTS, a credit system is in place for higher education. 2.6. What is the role of practice? (Proportion and delivery). For IVET delivered through a school-based scheme – about 15-20% compulsory work-based learning, depending on the type of programme and of diploma. For IVET delivered through apprenticeship, about 65-70%. For CVET, it depends on the demand, and on the sectoral, regional, local agreements involving, for instance, social partners or the regional authorities. 3. Accreditation of VET providers: 3.1. Who is responsible for the accreditation of VET providers? For IVET – the State and the regional authorities. For CVET – the providers evolve on a free market. They can be private or public. The 2009 law established the necessity to give transparency for those who buy training schemes and for citizens. CVET Providers must now give information about the objectives of training offered, about nature and time of provisions. They must deliver, at the end of the training periods, attestations explaining results of the evaluation and validation process. The law also intends to create a database of CVET providers, giving standardised information about providers, including their quality signals, such as labels. 3.2. Where does the decision making regarding the accreditation lie? Idem 3.3. How are the stakeholders involved in the decision making process? Stakeholders include the State through ministries, the social partners and the economic world, the Regions. All those actors collaborate at different levels: -- For IVET and CVET – at national level for the cooperation between stakeholders concerning VET policies: the National Council for Vocational Lifelong Learning. This Council also produces studies and reports. -- For qualifications recognised by the State – at national level: the National Commission for Professional Qualifications (CNCP). The commission is composed of ministries, social partners, Regions; its role is to manage the National Directory of Professional Certifications, to inform people, to check the complementarity of certifications. -- For IVET and CVET – at national level for the creation of qualifications: Professional Consultative Commissions. Vocational diplomas/qualifications are drawn up and regularly reviewed in consultation with the professional and economical world in the framework of national bodies called «Consultative Professional Committees» (Commissions Professionnelles Consultatives). These committees are compulsory and enable consultation for the creation and renewal of qualifications, for the definition of the contents of qualification, including the definition of learning outcomes. -- For IVET – at national level for the deliverance of training: the economic world also intervenes in the training deliverance since IVET relies on alternate schemes. IVET is delivered through apprenticeship but also through the school-based system which includes compulsory training periods in enterprises. -- For IVET – at national level for the validation process: the economic world also intervenes in the validation process through the participation of professionals on juries. -- For IVET – at regional level – regional employment and vocational training co-ordination committees (CCREFP) allow coordination and discussions between the stakeholders involved in VET in order to jointly intervene in scopes linked to employment and VET policies (state representatives, regional assemblies, management and labour organisations – social partners – and regional consular chambers: agriculture, trade and commerce and industry). -- For IVET – at regional level – the French Regions must plan and ensure the coherence of vocational training on their geographical area. Within this remit, they set out their policies according to their economic and social priorities, in consultation with the State and social partners, taking into account the regional employment and vocational training co-ordination committees. As such Regions draw up the regional plans for developing vocational training which set out, in the medium term, in their geographical area, a coherent programme for developing courses of study for young people and adults. The work should lead to contracts (Contrats de Plan Régionaux de Développement des Formations Professionnelles) signed between Regions and the State. -- For CVET – at national level – the National Joint Committee for Vocational Training is in charge of ensuring that continuing vocational training’s agreements are duly applied. -- For CVET – at regional level – regional employment and vocational training co-ordination committees (CCREFP) allow coordination and discussions between the stakeholders involved in VET in order to jointly intervene in scopes linked to employment and VET policies (state representatives, regional assemblies, management and labour organisations – social partners – and regional consular chambers: agriculture, trade and commerce and industry). -- For CVET – at regional level – the French Regions must plan and ensure the coherence of vocational training on their geographical area. Within this remit, they set out their policies according to their economic and social priorities, in consultation with the State and social partners, taking into account the regional employment and vocational training co-ordination committees. As such Regions draw up the regional plans for developing vocational training which set out, in the medium term, in their geographical area, a coherent programme for developing courses of study for young people and adults. The work should lead to contracts (Contrat de Plan Régionaux de Développement des Formations Professionnelles) signed between Regions and the State. 4. Training of teachers/trainers: 4.1. Who is a “teacher”/“trainer”? IVET teacher / lecturer – educator working in the formal education system, civil servants (90%). They are usually trained in higher education institutions (Universities, ‘écoles normales supérieures’, certain universities or private institutions). Teachers/trainers in apprenticeship – often ex-tradesmen and tradeswomen, experts in the field they are teaching; they may be employed on a contract (full- or part-time) in the Apprentice Training Centre, or they may be self-employed. IVET apprentice master – employee responsible for training a young apprentice within the company; no specific training or qualification process is required. CVET teachers and trainers – there is no national regulation governing the status of trainers or other training professionals. But there are different frameworks that can be developed. 4.2. Is the training of teachers/trainers based on standards/rameworks? For IVET and CVET teacher/lecturer, the status and rank are determined by national entrance examinations for admission to the profession and regulated by the state. 4.3. What institutions /instances are in charge with training of teachers/trainers? For IVET and CVET teacher/lecturer – higher education institutions. 4.4. What is the proportion “technical”/“pedagogical” in the training of teachers/trainers? 4.5. What institutions/instances are in charge with the accreditation of “teachers”/“trainers”? For IVET teacher/lecturer – the State: there are national entrance examinations for admission to the profession (concours), regulated by the State. Extra sources of information:www.centre-inffo.fr – the website of the French national Centre for the Development of Information on Continuing Vocational Training. Download Quality assurance procedures in the processes of certification, curricula setting, accreditation and training of trainers in European VET systems.
The OERTEST Project: Creating Political Conditions for Effective Exchange of OER in Higher Education. Luca Ferrari, Ivan Traina. This paper refers to the OERTest project and Open Educational Resources (OER) as support education materials that may be freely accessed, reused, modified and shared by anyone. In this paper we will try to answer the following question: how can the political conditions be created to foster an effective exchange of OERs between Higher Education institutions? The article presents several policy recommendations (intended as lessons learnt from the project) to ensure an effective recognition and exchange of OER between Higher Education Institutions. Download Ferrari Traina. Policy recommendations (PR) As a further result of the feasibility study the OERTest consortium has identified and discussed a set of policy recommendations (PR), that have been divided in two main categories: “macro level” (PR1-8), including general indications addressed to national and EU governments, organizations and competent authorities, developed by reviewing and updating the International and EU documents; “micro level” (PR9-18), including specific indications addressed to HEI, Universities and networks, developed through practical actions (analysis, action-research, test) and participatory exchanges (seminars, workshops, interviews) realized in the context of the OERTest project and related to problems still to be solved such as assessment and certification. In the following pages the PRs are shortly presented. PR1. Develop specific policies for the production and use of OER starting from awareness raising: HE institutions have to promote the development of specific policies for the production and use of OER within wider strategies for advancing education. The adoption of this vision will facilitate the creation of an open, flexible, inclusive educational environment including support mechanisms. PR2. Stimulate institutional and national partnerships: HE institutions are able to take part in educational collaborations, promote shared, collaborative teaching and provide reward systems for open education. PR3. Promote the exchange of ideas and practices among OER European interest groups: collaborative agreements between universities are likely to be the most productive approach (i.e. trust relationships as in Erasmus). PR4. Reconsider the existing Intellectual Property Right and Copyright schemes: enact legislations, then enable ‘fair educational use’ of copyrighted digital learning materials. Whenever learning materials are produced with public funding, open licenses should be used. PR5. Overcome fragmentation in learning resources: the creation of a repository of OER-modules based on quality criteria will facilitate learning processes. This implies the need for universities to share a common approach to training, which can call attention to the pedagogical potential of OERs, including the development of ICT skills (example: the OERTest Clearinghouse). The OERTest project set up a high-quality repository tested by 5 European universities, with commonly agreed standards for classification and scenarios in order to share the learning modules. PR6. Improve transparency and accountability in teaching: the creation of a “Learning Passport”, a European Diploma Supplement-compliant ‘transcript’, should be thought of as an opportunity through which HE institutions can record the learner’s achievements against Learning Outcomes. Other specific recommendations to facilitate this process are: Include, when publishing your own OERs, an overview on the content • (pre-structure), learning outcomes and suggested assessment methods. Think of the resources as one package which self-learners can use independently. Investigate whether assessment and recognition of your OERs would • be feasible within your own institution, e.g. for students of your own university, e.g. students of HEIs with existing agreements with your department/university (exchange programmes), prospective students of your programme through existing procedures of recognition of prior learning. PR7. Overcome the dichotomy between the perceived value of real and virtual learning: the adoption of OERs could contribute to: facilitating access to high quality content at university level and to the higher education system without the need to meet access requirements; promoting opportunities for professional improvement; encouraging the trend towards personalization and adaptation to the rhythm of student learning (just-in-time learning); reducing dropout rates, since the student has more information about the course; improving mobility and exchange between universities; providing an opportunity to rethink the university system in its most positive sense; enriching the learning process (and the institutions themselves) by making content available to students from other universities; complementing the traditional university system of funding. PR8. Promote the provision of Open Educational Assessment and quality procedures: HE institutions need to share barriers, opportunities and concrete practices in order to improve understanding of OER Assessment. To facilitate this, a possible regulatory framework was developed to allow for the unbundling of course design, provision and certification. In this framework the recommendation created in the OPAL project, the suggestion of integrating OEP into Institutional Quality Procedures is a relevant challenge: “traditional academic (and scientific) quality assurance procedures rely on a formal hierarchical system of peer-review and external assessment. Collaborative co-creation upends this quality model Recommendation: Develop specific quality schemes for Open Educational Practice, particularly by moving concepts from recent EU projects such as CONCEDE, OPAL, OERTest etc. from pilot into operational phases”. PR9. Open up assessment activity of HE Institution prior learning in order to include OER progressively: in OER-based learning, it is “essential” to support unbundled assessment & accreditation, to specify a “Learning Passport” and to create realistic assessment & certification scenarios that map onto current traditional higher education processes. PR10. Allow different scenarios to facilitate the acquisition of an educational certification/qualification: different universities prefer different scenarios, depending on their charging models, legislative constraints, prior collaborative arrangements, flexibility in current assessment procedures. There are at least four concrete reasons for using these scenarios: • as a showcase of a program within an institution; • to validate credits as part of a program within an institution; • as a supplement or complement to a degree course, that is, completing a program; • specialization regarding a concrete topic or knowledge area or to fill gaps. PR11. Adopt quality criteria to define the minimum requirements of an OER learning module to be eligible for assessment and certification: the definition of minimum requirements and characteristics of the modules from a simple and clear structure, and shared between institutions. These criteria have to make clear that the OER approach goes beyond the exhibition of content, in that it promotes a complex and complete learning process. PR12. Implement quality assurance assessment and certification: the implementation of a quality assurance assessment system and certification should be developed by management staff and it may involve teachers when accrediting the learning assessed in other institutions. In any case, these processes will be as systematic and concrete as possible as well as based on the reputation of institutions. The procedures for assessment and certification need to be clear and well formalized. PR13. Promote a plurality of assessment methods: the need to take into account a variety of assessment methods represents the way to promote a plurality of assessment methods. Nevertheless, it would be complex to define an evaluation process depending on each specific OER-module. Suggestions from the international experts involved in the OERTest project pointed out the importance of choosing the “appropriate tests or procedures”. Beyond the examinations (clearly insufficient), similar processes to the doctoral thesis or project evaluation could be followed. It is also suggested that “the assessment could be the same as that used with students who follow the present OCW”, i.e. continuous assessment applied or adapted to those taking part in the learning process in an autonomous way. PR14. Test informatics tools to improve the assessment process automation: different EU universities are testing informatics tools to support the assessment process. For instance when a student gathers a set of X evidences of X type, the system will inform that he or she is ready to be assessed; or in the case of accreditation, the system would offer the possibility of sending a certificate, recognizing it in the student record or sending the information to the university of origin. That is, linking the activity of the student to assessment and management, taking into account all processes and needs resulting from each phase. PR15. Explore an alternative economic model for the adoption of OER: the implementation of an economic model of OER in HE institutions, requires us to understand: • which inputs are available (internal and external to the institution)? • when will they be available? • who would benefit from them (the institution, the consortium, in percentages, etc...)? • what inputs cover what expenses? Regarding fees it is important to consider the processes that come into play and the resources consumed: “the price, at a minimum, must cover the costs”. PR16. Support initiatives creating shared Open Courseware repositories: need to support - starting from the EU level – OER initiatives creating shared Open Courseware repositories among existing ERASMUS networks in specific subjects. Furthermore, creating a repository of OER-modules based on quality criteria will facilitate learning processes. This implies the need to share a common structure between universities. We are working in the OERTest Clearinghouse along this line. PR17. Disseminate knowledge and existing good practices: the dissemination of knowledge about the existing good practices on identification and access management” requires universities to issue identity proofed online credentials and help build future partnerships among HE institutions. PR18. Address quality assurance for distributed learning: it is crucial to address quality assurance for distributed learning involving different HEI at the national level but also between different countries and allow pioneer HEI institutions to experiment “safely”. Conclusions If we accept to face the challenge of OER in HE, it is essential to change or modify our educational perspective, including finding creative solutions to shift from prescriptive educational methods towards open learning formats. The questions highlighted are central and aimed at analyzing efficiency benefits of OER, the relationship between OERs, and the reasons for teachers and learners to use OER materials. In this article we have presented some evidence and results of the OERTest project. At the same time we have presented the lessons learned and the consequent policy recommendations which each HE institution needs to take into account for implementing OERs. We conclude by calling for wider participation and input into the development, promotion and dissemination of a culture of sharing amongst the teaching community in Higher Education. We encourage readers to interact with the platform created in the framework of the OERTest project (http://www.oer-europe.net/node/15) and provide feedback and suggestions. Download Ferrari Traina.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has announced its high-level funding decisions for higher education in England, following the annual grant letter from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and subsequent decisions by the HEFCE Board on 31 January. Allocations to individual universities and colleges will be announced on 21 March. In 2013-14, the second year of the transition to the new funding arrangements for higher education, HEFCE will continue to invest for the benefit of students and the wider public. We remain committed to sustaining a high-quality teaching experience and to supporting high-cost and strategically important subjects, widening participation and smaller specialist institutions. We also support the Government’s drive to improve efficiency, and will continue to work with universities and colleges to deliver savings. The total amount the Board agreed for distribution for the 2013-14 academic year is £4.47 billion. This breaks down as follows: £2.3 billion for teaching Overall HEFCE teaching funding has reduced from £3.2 billion last year. This reflects a reduction in the numbers of students who entered higher education under the old funding regime, as they complete their studies, and an increase in the numbers of ‘new-regime’ students as they commence and continue theirs. The increase in tuition fees for new-regime students is in most cases significantly greater than the reduction in HEFCE grant and, on average, will result in higher income per student for universities and colleges in 2013-14 than in 2011-12. We have increased the rates at which we fund both old-regime and new-regime students by around 1 per cent compared to the current academic year. Under the new funding arrangements HEFCE will continue to fund widening participation activity (£105 million in 2013-14) and student retention (£228 million in 2013-14). In recognition of the importance of postgraduate provision we are continuing to provide additional funding for taught postgraduate students, who are not eligible for publicly funded tuition fee loans. We recognise the complexity of having two funding regimes running in parallel and the administrative burden that this places on universities and colleges. We will support them in adjusting to the new regime, and keep any change to a minimum. £1.6 billion for research This is the same cash level of funding that we have allocated for research in the past two years; we are not changing our funding formula for research this year. HEFCE remains the single biggest funder of university research in England. The single largest element of our funding, for mainstream quality-related research (QR), is just over £1 billion (including London weighting). We will continue to support research degrees, with £240 million. The other elements of research funding comprise QR charity funding (£198 million), QR business funding (£64 million) and funding for National Research Libraries (£6 million). Read more... See also Board decisions.
Eurofound launches the fieldwork for its 3rd European Company Survey: Surveying how European workplaces have managed in the economic downturn. In 2009, more than 60% of employees in Europe were covered by a trade union or a works council at the workplace, according to the European Company Survey. At the same time, four out of five workplaces were found to have a good work climate. This week across 32 countries, Eurofound launches the fieldwork for the new edition of European Company Survey, aimed at providing insights to changes in workplace and human resource management practices, employee participation and social dialogue at the workplace, and performance, since the inset of the economic downturn. European companies play a crucial role in getting out of the crisis and in reaching the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy for sustainable, inclusive and smart growth. The European Company Survey (ECS) gives an overview of workplace practices and how they are negotiated in European establishments. It is based on the views of both managers and employee representatives, and it isdesigned to provide information on workplace practices to develop and evaluate socioeconomic policy. First carried out in 2004, and the second edition in 2009, the fieldwork for the third edition of the European Company Survey (3ECS) starts this week. The fieldwork will be carried out simultaneously in 32 countries (27 EU Member States and Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro and Turkey), targeting 29,950 companies and establishments, ranging from 300 to 1650 depending on the size of the country. Interviews are carried out with a manager responsible for human resources and an employee representative at workplace level. The main focus of the 3ECS is work organisation, workplace innovation, employee participation and social dialogue. The survey will map a number of practices used in European workplaces, as well as how they are discussed and negotiated at workplace level as well as some of their outcomes. The questionnaire was prepared in cooperation with Eurofound's tripartite stakeholders and experts in the relevant fields. Information and research data from the Second European Company Survey (2ECS) are available. More information on the third ECS. First results are anticipated at the end of the year.
Foundation Forum 2013 - Social and employment policies for a fair and competitive Europe,14–15 February 2013, Dublin Castle, Dublin, Ireland The Foundation Forum, which takes place every four years in Dublin, is Eurofound’s ‘flagship’ event. It is designed to provide a high-level forum for debate and discussion of key social policy issues facing Member States. The Forum brings together leading decision-makers and opinion-formers, together with academic experts, in a neutral setting to promote the exchange of new ideas and experiences on subjects of policy relevance and within the Foundation’s competence. The fifth edition of the Forum will be dedicated to the theme of ‘Social and employment policies for a fair and competitive Europe’. Through panel sessions, plenary debates and interactive technologies, Forum participants will address the most pressing issues in this area to come up with original, workable solutions that can potentially feed into the policymaking process. A programme is available. The Forum is organised with the support of the Irish government. See Foundation Forum 2009, 2006, 2004 and 2002 for information on previous Forum events.
The State of University Policy for Progress in Europe. HOAREAU, Cecile; RITZEN, Jo & MARCONI, Gabriele. 2012. Maastricht: Empowering European Universities Publications. This report analyzes the contribution of higher education policies to higher education performance and economic innovation. Furthermore, it measures and compares the role and involvement of national governments’ policies to foster such contribution across Europe. The publication summarizes the main findings in a policy report, explains used data and method in a technical report, and provides a glimpse into each one of the 32 countries in a country report. For more information, follow this link. Abstract Higher education contributes to economic innovation. This study measures and compares the extent to which national governments’ policies foster this contribution across Europe. The study stresses the relevance of policies which are ‘empowering’ for higher education institutions, or in other words provide them with appropriate resources and regulatory environments. The assessment relies on quantitative scores, based on the contribution of policies regarding funding and autonomy to higher education performance in education, research and economic innovation, using non-arbitrary weights and eighteen policy indicators across 32 European countries. A large number of countries belong to a ‘middle group’ in our overall assessment, indicating a relative cohesion in Europe. Yet, substantial variations exist in terms of higher education policy in Europe, each European country having room for policy improvement... 6. Recommendations. University policy matters a great deal when it comes to the impact of university education and research on innovation. This became apparent in the preceding, however fuzzy many of our indicators and how simplified our framework were. The analysis leads to the following policy recommendations. 6.1. Innovation. Governments are increasingly including higher education in their innovation strategies. This inclusion does not only take the form of funding, but is also represented by changes in governance structures. Eight Governments have integrated higher education with innovation in a single ministry to facilitate common policies. For example, Denmark has now a Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education, the UK has established a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills while Slovenia had a Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology (until March 2012). We have recorded five Governments who actively encourage interministerial cooperation between education ministers and other ministries on innovation matters, where the responsibility for innovation is split. For example in Norway the Ministry for Trade and Industry and the Ministry for Education and Research have established closer relations to stimulate innovation. More Governments could adopt integrated or coordinated governance structures to promote a coherent strategy between higher education and innovation, if they want higher education to work for innovation. 6.2. Autonomy. On the autonomy side we see that Governments seem to have two spirits in one body (zwei Seelen in einem Brust). They know how important autonomy is, but are not so sure whether universities are always able to use the autonomy with which universities are entrusted well (i.e. for societal purposes). There are cases in countries with a high degree of autonomy, where this autonomy is not always used well (in the perception of the Government). This is not surprising as universities are run by professionals who constantly make trade-offs between their contribution to society and their own self- interests, if the two are conflicting. The ideal world would be one in which the contribution of universities to the learning of students would be well measured and visible, so that student demand could focus universities on the societal track. Yet in the absence of such measures, funding based on performance indicators could provide incentives for institutions to serve the social purposes. “Incentives” take various forms across countries, like contracts, funding per student, funding a minimum level of student places, or funding based on the number of graduates. We could not find a significant impact of funding incentives on innovation which is not surprising given our rather fuzzy indicator for incentives in funding. Policy autonomy translates into relatively high levels of graduation and employment. Managerial autonomy is important for the research attractiveness and research productivity, but less important for graduation and employment. There is no reason for any country not to engage in achieving the autonomy of universities (which includes academic and staffing autonomy), provided sufficient quality incentives in funding exist. One could very well imagine that the degree of managerial autonomy be differentiat in differentiated systems of higher education. It is clear that research universities perform better with managerial autonomy, but it is less clear whether this also applies for non-research universities. There is special case to be made for more policy autonomy with respect to accreditation and quality control. Most European countries require that national criteria apply. “Only in four countries (Austria, Switzerland, the Cyprus and Iceland) are universities able to select their quality assurance mechanisms freely and according to their needs” (Estermann et al, 2010). The great advantage of more policy autonomy is in this case –besides the competition which arises in the quality of accreditation organizations- that the administrative burden for institutions decreases, and that it becomes so much easier to have joint degrees across European countries. The same should be applied to accreditation on a programme basis: there is no reason to limit university policy autonomy to national accredition for degree programs. Institutional accreditation or institutional auditing for quality assurance is a different matter. This has to be national (as is the case in Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Norway and the UK). 6.3 Funding. Universities largely rely on public funding in Europe (even if funding is being diversified). It is clear from our research that governmental effort in funding is related to a higher university performance. Funding was not considered in absolute amounts, but rather in terms of effort so as to control for the country’s GDP. Countries with a more modest economic performance can invest in a competitive way in higher education. The less economically developed EU countries can use structural and cohesion funds to develop their human capital, as has been, for example, the case in Poland. The use of structural and cohesion funds to upgrade universities could improve the performance of higher education in less economically developed regions. Financial aid to students was equally important as funding effort. In this respect many countries have not yet their act together. Substantial amounts of Government support (in the form of tax credits or child allowances) support parents rather than students, and tend to benefit an already comfortable upper and middle class, reducing funds available for loans and grants for students who cannot participate in higher education because of financial constraints. Governments should redirect Government support for students to effectively increasing equality of opportunity. 6.4 Policy continuity. Government policy is the subject of political decisions. From the country correspondents a picture emerges of politics which do not always provide the necessary continuity and predictability. The translation of a new policy in the practice of university performance takes at least 5-10 years. If policies change with a greater frequency then they are bound to be ineffective. Several European countries have had in the recent past average durations of Government shorter than the announced length of their mandates, with every new Government often coming up with new university reforms, sometimes reinforcing each other, but sometimes also contradicting each other. This is not in the interest of students, universities and innovation. Politicians should look for a broad political support in enacting new Government regulations (with support beyond the ruling party or the ruling coalition). One way of doing this is by agreeing to a new social contract between universities, politicians and stakeholders. 6.5 Quality in universities. The major recommendation to universities is to be aware of the need to earn the trust of society for the autonomy and funding they receive and to create the organizational conditions to do so. Part of the conditions is also to focus on the quality of staff recruitment, staff promotion and staff support. Yet, Trust is primarily earned by universities by showing dedication and responsibility with respect to the throughput and employability of the graduates. 6.6 Inter-country dialogue. An urban legend tells us that when Jean Monnet led the first meeting on Europe he said that he would like to see education and culture to be the main pillar of the then European Community for Coal and Steel. However, history took its turn and excluded education and culture from the EU responsibility. This exclusion of education from the different treaties has led to insufficient attention for country comparisons of educational policy with the aim to draw lessons from them. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 brought the necessary correction and gave education a distinct but still modest position in the Treaty, providing in retrospect a more suitable legal basis for the Erasmus programme founded in 1987. The European Commission has embarked upon a series of studies and comparisons, applying soft 'naming and shaming', through what is called the 'open method of coordination'. The Bologna process subsequently led to an unprecedented intercountry dialogue across Europe. The Bologna process with EU support should go further to enrich the effectiveness of university policies in each of the EU countries, by tackling key issues of relevance to higher education, even if politically difficult. 6.7 Incentives at the European level. Incentives in funding universities for higher performance are a surrogate for competitive mechanisms. Universities which do well, according to the incentivized goals and parameters, will receive financial rewards for this. Most European Governments have implemented some form of incentive structure in funding universities. However, on the European level such surrogate competition is absent. This defect should be mended in view of the increasing flow of EU students between countries which contributes to the productivity of graduates on the labour market. In this respect one could think of a new sub-program of the Erasmus exchange for full time studies abroad (within the EU). In this subprogram students are free to choose where they want to study, while the financial conditions (tuition fee and financial aid) are the same as if they would study in their home country. Subsequently, universities which are good at attracting students are rewarded by funding the receiving university from EU funds on a per student basis. Like national incentives, this international incentive would upgrade the quality of university education. As the same time it would greatly increase student mobility, a possible motor of European growth. At the European level an incentive should be created for universities to attract full-time students from other EU countries. There are serious problems with joint degrees across European countries centering round the legal status of a national degree. So long as degrees are embedded in national legal systems, the problem will not go away. However far reaching: it would be a great advantage for the quality of higher education in Europe if degrees could be embedded in European legislation. Download The State of University Policy for Progress in Europe.
The new project is called Miríada X and was launched last 10 January
The American Network of university collaboration (Universia) and Telefónica Learning Services launched their new project called Miríada X, a platform of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC's) created to encourage the dissemination of knowledge in open Space Iberoamerican Higher Education. Miríada X allows free access to the Online Course Information published by the faculty of more than 1200 Latin American universities from over 23 Latin American countries. Thus, it facilitates the exchange of information and knowledge through dialogue collaboration networks. All interested users can register for free. For more information, follow this link.
By Fiona Hunter. Many of us in the field of higher education have long-standing experience in our fields of expertise but are still relatively new to the concept of strategic planning, especially when this involves the whole institution. How might we define strategic planning with regards to international education, and what needs to happen within the institution if ambitious goals for internationalisation are to be realised?
/https%3A%2F%2Fprofilepics.canalblog.com%2Fprofilepics%2F1%2F0%2F1076071.jpg)