Canalblog
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog

Formation Continue du Supérieur

21 mai 2012

Les think tanks IFFRES à présent sur Viadeo et LinkedIn

http://iffresblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cropped-sydney_bridge1.jpgL’IFFRES a mis en place des groupes en lien avec différents think tanks sur les réseaux Viadeo et LinkedIn et vous pouvez dès à présent les rejoindre!
Ces groupes d’échange sont publics, vous pouvez par conséquent apporter votre contribution et inviter toutes les personnes susceptibles d’être intéressées par ce sujet de réflexion.
De plus, les principaux contributeurs de chaque groupe bénéficieront d’une invitation gratuite pour le colloque IFFRES 2012 qui aura lieu à Paris les 15 et 16 novembre. Ce colloque aura pour thème: « La crise: une opportunité pour les fondations de Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur? ».
Vous trouverez la liste des six groupes et les liens ci-dessous:

Comment le fundraising s’adapte-t-il à la crise à l’étranger? => Rejoindre le groupe sur Viadeo et/ou LinkedIn 
Etude sur le mécénat des entreprises dans la recherche et l’enseignement supérieur => Rejoindre le groupe sur Viadeo et/ou LinkedIn
Les best practices (Apprendre et Partager les expériences concrètes) + Elaboration Charte du Mécénat et des Relations entreprises pour la Recherche & l’Enseignement Supérieur => Rejoindre le groupe sur Viadeo et/ou LinkedIn
Soutenir l’innovation dans les TPE-PME => Rejoindre le groupe sur Viadeo et/ou LinkedIn
Quelle organisation et quels profils pour mettre en œuvre les IDEX, LABEX, IRT, IHU, FCS et autres fondations? => Rejoindre le groupe sur Viadeo et/ou LinkedIn
Développer l’entreprenariat et l’innovation chez les jeunes et les étudiants =>  Rejoindre le groupe sur Viadeo et/ou LinkedIn.

http://iffresblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cropped-sydney_bridge1.jpg The IFFRES established groups in connection with various think tanks on Twitter and LinkedIn networks, and now you can join them! These exchange groups are public, therefore you can make your contribution and invite all persons who may be interested in this topic discussion. More...

21 mai 2012

Erasmus at 25: what is the future for international student mobility?

http://static.guim.co.uk/static/ad0511f704894b072867e61615a7d577d265dd03/common/images/logos/the-guardian/professional.gifBy Hans de Wit. Millions in higher education have benefited from the exchange programme but too much bureaucracy places it at risk.
The Erasmus Programme was initiated by the European Commission 25 years ago, in a time that the commission didn't even have a mandate on education. The community only had 11 members and the Iron Curtain was still present. Humble beginnings aside, 25 years on, the programme continues to have a great impact on the development of Europe and its higher education.
In 1987, 3,244 students spent part of their studies in another member country. Three million students have followed their example in the past 25 years and the number of countries has grown from 11 to 33, including non-EU members such as Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Turkey and Switzerland. The budget of the programme for the period 2007-2013 is €3.1bn.
More than in numbers of mobile students, the impact of the programme has been on the internationalisation and the reform of higher education. Erasmus has paved the way for the reform of European higher education under the Bologna Process, has been a pilot for its study point scheme ECTS, and was an initiator for the opening up to countries in central and eastern Europe to EU-membership, as it is for current aspiring candidate members. The programme stimulated both national governments and institutions of higher education to develop European and international strategies.
The proposal by the European Commission for a new "Erasmus for all" programme reflects this global approach to Erasmus and the ambition of the commission to extend the scope and targets of the programme: an additional five million students studying abroad between 2014 and 2020. Even in the UK – which has always been a small player in the programme due to the imbalance between continental students interested in studying in the UK and the limited mobility aspirations of British students (twice as many Erasmus students study in the UK than go from the UK to the continent to study) and the priority of recruitment of students as an income source - the interest for the programme is growing.
On 22 March 2012, the House of Lords European Union Committee released a publication on The Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe. The report expresses concern on the low levels of UK student outward mobility, and proposes that universities and the commission should promote mobility opportunities and make Erasmus placements more flexible. While the Bologna ministers of education in their recent biannual meeting in Bucharest kept firm to their aspiration to have 20% mobility, the figures though are showing a different picture. In most countries the number of mobile students is still below 5%. There is an increased concern about the focus on numbers and percentages, which moves away from the need to concentrate on the content and the quality of the international experience.
Student mobility – and internationalisation of higher education as such – is not a goal in itself but a means to enhance the quality of the educational experience and the international learning outcomes of the students. In the early years of the Erasmus programme, the enthusiasm of faculty – encountering their colleagues, learning about their curricula and teaching methods – was driving the success and the impact of the Erasmus programme. Erasmus has moved away from those inspiring days and has become too much a bureaucratic exercise, in which only numbers count. If the Erasmus programme would find something back of its focus on curriculum and learning outcomes of the past, not only it will enhance the quality of the experience but also will increase the interest of the faculty and the students, and as a result of that the numbers.
Hans de Wit is professor of internationalisation of higher education at the
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, and director of the Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation at the Catholic University in Milan.
21 mai 2012

Retours d’expériences sur l’évaluation

http://www.aeres-evaluation.fr/var/aeres/storage/images/media/images/rexs1/271294-1-fre-FR/RexS1.pngRetours d’expériences sur l’évaluation des établissements 2010-2011 (vague B)
Dans une perspective d’amélioration continue de son processus d’évaluation, l’AERES a souhaité, par la mise en place de retours d’expériences, recueillir l’avis des principaux acteurs concernés.
Ces retours d’expériences, portant sur l’évaluation des établissements de la campagne 2010-2011 (vague B), se sont articulés en plusieurs étapes:
* L’organisation d’une enquête de satisfaction (fin 2011) auprès des établissements évalués;
* La réalisation d’une analyse à partir de l’exploitation conjointe:
- des résultats de l’enquête;
- des observations des présidents/directeurs d’établissement en réponse au rapport d’évaluation de l’AERES ;
* La concertation avec les acteurs au cours de trois rencontres réunissant respectivement les présidents/directeurs d’établissement (45 établissements représentés), les tutelles et les présidents de comité de visite ayant conduit l’évaluation. Les échanges ont porté sur trois thèmes:
- les évolutions du processus d’évaluation externe (phase amont, visite, phase aval);
- l’utilisation et l’utilité de l’évaluation par les établissements et les parties prenantes;
- les repères pour l’autoévaluation d’un établissement.
L’AERES a retenu trois grands objectifs: renforcer la méthodologie de l’évaluation, mieux outiller les experts et améliorer la qualité des relations AERES-Etablissement en amont et en aval de l’évaluation. Parmi les premiers projets de l’AERES prévus au décours de ces rencontres, citons l’élaboration d’un guide de l’autoévaluation en 2012, en concertation avec des représentants des établissements (universités, écoles et instituts, organismes) et de leurs tutelles.
Un questionnaire de satisfaction dédié aux présidents et aux experts des comités de visite viendra également compléter cette démarche d’amélioration continue pour les prochaines campagnes.
3 - Synthèse des commentaires du questionnaire

Les commentaires ont été analysés en distinguant les commentaires positifs et ceux signalant des difficultés, de nature et d’importance variables: la première catégorie est moins nombreuse que la seconde car elle concerne des appréciations plus globales; alors que les répondants ont pris soin de justifier avec toutes les précisions utiles des appréciations négatives. Les commentaires positifs, très comparables pour les universités et écoles, sont présentés ensemble alors que les difficultés le sont séparément.
Les établissements n’ont pas tous accordé la même attention aux commentaires permettant de justifier leurs réponses au questionnaire: cette rubrique est souvent non renseignée. Les universités produisent moins de commentaires que les écoles et instituts. Il apparait ainsi que, si les universités se sont largement exprimées sur l’ensemble de la procédure dans les réponses des présidents, les écoles et instituts ont réservé leurs remarques au cadre du questionnaire. De plus, il faut noter que le groupe des écoles est hétérogène, ce qui peut expliquer les apparentes contradictions de leurs réponses.

http://www.aeres-evaluation.fr/var/aeres/storage/images/media/images/rexs1/271294-1-fre-FR/RexS1.png~~VTilbagemeldinger på Institutional Review 2010-2011 (bølge B)
Ønsker du at den løbende forbedring af den evalueringsproces, AERES ønsket, ved indførelse af feedback, få feedback fra centrale aktører.

Disse feedbacks, om evalueringen af ​​institutioner i 2010-2011 sæsonen (bølge B), struktureret blev i flere etaper:

* Tilrettelæggelsen af ​​en tilfredshedsundersøgelse (sent 2011) med de evaluerede institutioner;

* Gennemføre en analyse fra den fælles drift:

- Resultaterne af undersøgelsen;

- Observationer af formændene / skoleledere i svar på evalueringsrapporten AERES;

* Høring af berørte parter i løbet af tre møder med henholdsvis formænd / skoleledere (45 institutioner er repræsenteret), guardianships og udvalgsformænd fra førende vurderingen besøget.
Drøftelserne var koncentreret om tre temaer:
- Ændringer i den eksterne evaluering processen (indledende fase, besøg, senere fase);

- Brugen og nytten af ​​evaluering af institutioner og interessenter;

- Benchmarks for selvevaluering af en institution
. Mere...
21 mai 2012

Evaluating the ‘Mobility Mapping Tool’

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/MAUNIMO/MAUNIMO_Logo_web.sflb.ashxFrom 3 to 4 May, 30 universities participating in the pilot of the MAUNIMO project – Mapping University Mobility of Staff and Students – gathered at the University of Trento, Italy, to discuss the testing of the Mobility Mapping Tool (MMT), a self-evaluation tool designed by EUA and its project partners.

Constructed as a survey that can be filled out by a wide range of actors in the institution (students, academic staff, administrative staff, etc.), the MMT intends to assist universities in interrogating perceptions and developing priorities and knowledge of student and staff mobility. Promoting a dynamic definition of mobility that includes students, staff, young researchers, doctoral candidates, etc., the MMT ultimately attempts to help universities raise awareness for mobility policies and activities across the institution, and take discussions on mobility beyond the international office.
The 30 universities participating in the evaluation seminar in Trento reported on their personal experiences in testing the Mobility Mapping Tool and specific approaches they took to adapt it to their own contexts, needs and resources. Some institutions received feedback from as many as 160 individuals in the university on the questionnaire, whereas others took a more targeted approach, disseminating it only to certain departments or certain representative individuals. In general, though there was a variety of criticism and feedback on how to improve the MMT, almost all institutions agreed that the MMT helped to raise awareness of the importance and complexity of mobility. Some institutions even stated that they would use the process to help revise their internationalisation strategies.
Over the next months, the Mobility Mapping Tool will be revised and re-developed according to the feedback of the pilot universities so it can be made available to a wider university audience. Key policy messages on how universities are presently strategising around mobility will be summarised in a project publication and promoted at a final conference at the University of Oslo, Norway, from 4 to 5 September. Registration for this event will be launched at the end of May (and will be announced in the EUA newsletter). For more information about MAUNIMO, which is co-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, visit the project website.
21 mai 2012

Séniors Entrepreneurs

http://www.seniorsentrepreneurs.eu/images/boutons/boutoncolloque.gifAujourd'hui de nombreux seniors veulent rester actifs, bien après l'âge de la retraite. Il s'agit pour eux de dépasser le pessimisme ambiant et de manifester leur confiance dans l'avenir de leur pays, de l'Europe, et de leurs enfants. Cette activité contribuerait aussi à les maintenir en bonne santé, ce qui n'est pas négligeable!
Nombre d'Européens portent des ressources et des talents inexploités. Certains seniors, alliés à des jeunes dynamiques, souhaiteraient reprendre ou créer une entreprise en mobilisant leur expérience et leur compétence, ainsi que leur capacité financière.
http://www.seniorsentrepreneurs.eu/images/jpg/logo_double_AE2012-1.gifNotre volonté
Créer des entreprises qui réuniraient des associés seniors représentant les principales fonctions de direction et de gouvernance. Atout majeur pour obtenir des financements.
L'association Seniors Entrepreneurs vise à créer une plate-forme de contacts entre seniors aux compétences complémentaires et avec des jeunes motivés. Le partage des risques et des responsabilités devient alors un atout dans le contexte économique actuel.
En plus de la transmission des expériences entrepreneuriales, la motivation des moins de 40 ans leur offre la possibilité de devenir les futurs associés repreneurs de ces sociétés.
Seniors Entrepreneurs apporte un service innovant.
Notre réseau veut s'ouvrir aux Seniors et aux Juniors attirés par l'aventure de l'entreprise, comme porteur d'un projet, associé ou conseiller ou opérationnel.
Les seniors actifs et entreprenants représentent un potentiel économique inexploité très important, plusieurs études récentes le confirment.
Cette action contribue à soutenir l'activité économique et à créer des emplois dans une démarche intergénérationnelle. Le Président, Guy Mariaud.
http://www.seniorsentrepreneurs.eu/images/boutons/boutoncolloque.gif I dag er mange seniorer ønsker at forblive aktive længe efter pensionsalderen. Det er for dem at overvinde pessimisme og vise deres tillid til fremtiden for deres land, Europa, og deres børn. Denne aktivitet vil også bidrage til at holde dem sunde, hvilket ikke er ubetydelig!
Mange europæere er ressourcer og uudnyttet talent.
Nogle seniorer, kombineret med dynamiske unge, ønsker at vende tilbage eller starte en virksomhed ved at udnytte den erfaring og ekspertise, samt deres finansielle kapacitet. Mere...
20 mai 2012

TALES OF UNIVERSITY DEVOLUTION: Organizational Behavior in the Age of Markets

http://cshe.berkeley.edu/images/cshe_logo_small.gifBy John Aubrey Douglass. CSHE 6.12 (April 2012). Download TALES OF UNIVERSITY DEVOLUTION: Organizational Behavior in the Age of Markets.
Abstract: In the wake of the Cold War era, America’s research universities became increasingly characterized by a tribal mentality among schools and departments, and disciplines. The surge in research funding, and the tremendous growth rate among the major public universities in particular, fostered the idea of the “multiversity” was becoming less communal, and less aware of the collective purpose. These patterns have accelerated considerably over the past two decades in the US that reflect three relatively new realities or influences: a) within the public university sector, decreasing public subsidies have influenced a movement toward internal management decisions and organizations that have eroded a previous model of revenue sharing (in tuition and fees, in overhead generated by extramural research, for example) to profit, loss, and prestige centers; b) this has been accompanied and reinforced by the concept that there are different market opportunities among different schools, departments, disciplines and their degrees, and hence opportunity costs (in the tuition price of an MBA versus and English PhD, for example) in which high income units should retain and spend those monies. These influences are common in various degrees globally but from different source. In much of the world, including Europe, the demands and edicts of ministries and evolving concepts of faculty as civil servants heavily influence organizational behavior. In the US, the decrease in public investment is driving internal behaviors shaped as well by the interests of faculty, the increasing global nature of knowledge production, and market opportunities that differ among the disciplines. This paper explores the development and impact of these various influences on research intensive universities, with the theme that the internal concept of the university is rapidly changing, influencing the behavior of academic leaders and faculty, the organization of the post-modern university, the flow of funds, and ultimately the perceived and real role of the research university in society. Past observers of the life and times on universities have described aspects of this shift as a movement from a larger sense of a university community among faculty to a tribal mentality. But the current shift extends well the weakening of disciplines and departments, beyond faculty as individual actors to the internal organization of the academy and a relatively new concept of profit and loss centers. This shift toward what I call “University Devolution” or fragmentation is influenced by the external political, social, and economic world. In Europe and elsewhere, neo-liberal ministries wield great power and have helped pushed universities toward this model. In the US, it remains largely a phenomenon influenced by reduced government investment yet ultimately driven by internal decision-making related to privatization – thus far. The paper ends with a brief discussion on whether the organizational behaviors in US research universities are reflective of global trends, or are in some aspects unique.
A GLOBAL TREND?

Boalt Hall, the Darden Business School, and the unraveling of faculty salary ladder or scales at the University of California are a sampling of various behaviors rooted in financial challenges and the changing market for degree programs and for faculty. While beyond the scope of this brief study, there are other behaviors that would be informative to explore. This includes a relatively new “re-charge” culture, or what is sometimes call Responsibility Centered Management, in which goods and services offered at one time by the university at no direct cost are now being itemized and charged supposedly at cost, but one might surmise sometimes inflated as units strive to create surpluses. Another is the effect of a growing regulatory regime linked to federal and state mandates, but also internal auditing and values. And yet another variable are the organizational behaviors shaped by America’s litigious society and by increased rights granted to employees of universities. Although difficult to measure, these are growing influences on the university environment – some good, some bad.
Is the process of Devolution a particularly American phenomenon? Perhaps the stronger sense of community once prevalent in campuses, and reinforced by budget allocations, by the sense of collective effort in expanding academic programs and growing enrollment, is a relatively unique American phenomenon. The sense of loss, or regression into a more fragmented academic milieu, is therefore more pronounced; perhaps it never really existed in many other nations where the primacy of the department or faculties in various fields has been more significant, reinforced to some degree by the lack of general education requirements which spread course workload, and funding, among the academic fields. In Japan, for instance, the supremacy of faculty and their departments and schools, has long ruled, seemingly impervious to campus wide coordination or even government policy initiatives.
Under a plan to expand the authority the presidents of the elite national universities, Japan’s ministry of education changed the status of these institutions as corporate entities under a familiar formula: give the university and its academic leader more autonomy but with the burden of a greater accountability regime. But all evidence is that there has been no major shift in authority or power internally – thus far. One sees similar ministerial efforts to empower the academic heads of French and German universities. As Georg Kruecken has observed, “The university as an organization is transforming into an organizational actor, i.e. an integrated, goal-oriented, and competitive entity in which management and leadership play an ever more important role.” This seems to point to greater centralization of authority and perhaps the promise of greater cohesion within university communities, even if one result is the infiltration of private sector acumen about budgets and operations that some may not find completely admirable (Kruecken 2011).
There is a significant and growing literature beyond the initial studies by Kerr, Jencks and Riesman, and Tony Becher that focused on the American scene and now includes international comparative perspectives (Kruecken and Meier, 2006; Musselin, 2009; Oslen, 2010, Scott, 2010). There is a distinct difference in the experience and viewpoint that focuses on the power and influence of central governments in shaping organizational behavior and with a different starting point in places like Europe in which universities have not historically been engaged as agents of economic development and socioeconomic mobility as their American counterparts. In the viewpoint of European critiques, for example, an “academic oligarchy” of faculty narrowly concerned about their research ruled the day and only recently has succumbed to a numbing series of edicts from government to drag it closer to the “market” (Clark, 1998; Ritzen, 2010). This is a story line that simply does not apply to America’s public universities that have always had in their DNA the idea of promoting socio-economic mobility and economic development as part of their public mission and portfolio.
At the same time, however, some of the elements of Devolution story are common, found throughout the world. There is convergence. US research universities are perhaps a bit ahead of the curve in some aspects – like differential fees, different salaries for different faculty, entrepreneurial funding schemes for capital outlays etc. – but it does seem to be a curve and one sees their relevancy or emergence in most parts of the world.
There is, I suspect, much more commonality and convergence than growing differences in organizational behavior. But one might speculate that the causes are somewhat different. One cause globally is the quest of ministries to create so-called “world class university” focused largely ranking systems that rely on citation index, patents and licenses, and reputational surveys. The push for improved rankings by ministries, along with their desire for greater differentiation within national networks of universities – where often the rush toward creating mass higher education systems resulting in statements and national allocations of funds under the ruse that all universities were equal in status, in quality, in productivity – are changing behaviors of faculty and of academic leaders and their staff. The establishment of quality assurance offices and staff, and matrixes to judge the performance of faculty and departments, within universities throughout the globe alone attest to changing behaviors.
Finally, if we view the process of privatization and increased fragmentation of resources as the result of a rational response of the academy, and specifically of research universities, to a more market oriented environment, then arguably what I describe as Devolution is in fact some sort of evolutionary process. Either way, one must assume it is not a process yet completed. It might mean, for example, that despite the tricky problems posed by tenure, some sub-set of academic programs may appear increasingly as expendable; that faculty salaries will become increasingly differentiated; that the profit and loss centers, and prestige faculty and departments, will become more pronounced. It means that the idea of the comprehensive university, with a broad array of disciplines, and with quality across the board, will be an increasingly rare or at least difficult to achieve commodity. But that is only speculation.
Universities have been extremely robust institutions over time, adapting to societal pressures and funding changes. Devolution may be simply another phase that alters but does not fundamentally change core practices and missions. That is speculation as well. Download TALES OF UNIVERSITY DEVOLUTION: Organizational Behavior in the Age of Markets.
20 mai 2012

HEIK academic seminar on rankings and organisation of universities

http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/wp-content/themes/hedda/styles/blue/head-bg.jpgThis video features a presentation by dr. Kerstin Sahlin, titled “A rising interest in management and governance of universities: Rankings and organization models on the move”
In this presentation, Sahlin examines two influential global themes: the expansion of rankings and assessments, and how universities have become organisational actors. The two themes are interrelated and they are also connected to a number of other global developments, and multilevel analysis will be employed to explain why universities have lately become subject to such intense reforms of governance and organization.
Kerstin Sahlin is currently a professor of business administration at Uppsala University, and has extensive first hand knowledge about higher education governance in Nordic countries. She has earlier held the position of prorector at Uppsala University and her main research interests are linked to the organizational change in the public sector and the transnationalisation of management ideas.
The lecture was recorded in April 2012 as a part of the academic seminar series of the research group HEIK (Higher Education: Institutional Dynamics and Knowledge Cultures) at the university of Oslo.
See also New HEIK working paper on institutional transformation of a new university.
20 mai 2012

Opening doors to higher and continuous education

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/img/new/common/logo_en.pngJust over a third of young people graduate from universities in the OECD area and about a tenth finish shorter, more work-oriented courses. But the rapid expansion of higher education  and its growing cost are focusing attention in many countries on issues of quality, relevance and efficiency.
How should higher education respond to the growing and widening demand for effective services? And what can policy makers do to improve access, quality and value for money in higher education? OECD countries also face major challenges in ensuring adults don’t end their education on graduation day, but go on actively learning throughout their lives.
What does OECD do?
special review is examining the organisation, management and delivery of tertiary education in 23 countries, while OECD has also worked on guidelines for cross-border education. There has been a review of adult learning and of how it can be promoted through the use of national qualifications systems. OECD has also examined the potential for e-learning in post-secondary education.
IMHE is the OECD’s Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education - a unique international forum for higher education institutions that addresses issues such as their contribution to regional development, the roles of public and private funding in higher education, and trends like the rising popularity of overseas and remote study.
More

Don't miss
20 mai 2012

Study on Impact of Global Economic Crisis on Higher Education

http://www.iau-aiu.net/sites/all/themes/iauaiu/images/iau-en-e-small.pngCall for participation: The Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) Higher Education Policy Unit, in partnership with IAU, will conduct a study on how the current economic crisis is affecting higher education institutions and what leadership and management challenges it is bringing in various parts of the world. The researchers undertaking the study are calling for expressions of interest from institutional participant in all regions of the world. If your university is interested to take part, please read and respond positively to the Call for Institutional Participants.
First International Study on the Impact of the Global Economic Crisis on Higher Education: Leadership and Management Challenges

The on-going Global Economic Crisis (GEC) is having an enduring and profound impact on higher education. At the same time, the continuing shift to the knowledge-based economy, the rising demand for and costs of higher education, and the influence of global rankings are placing issues of quality and performance under intense scrutiny. Faculty are also under pressure; calls for greater productivity and accountability question traditional work-practices and values. Many of these challenges were manifest years ago; but the extent of change now being experienced suggests higher education is undergoing significant structural adjustment. We are all familiar with general commentary about increasing global competition and the need to demonstrate relevance. However, we lack deep-level knowledge of what is happening in higher education: the extent of change taking place, and the impact on individual institutions. In particular, we lack specific understanding of how the new global economic environment is affecting the role and responsibilities of HEIs, and what structural or organisational changes are being made. To what extent is the new global environment a driver of these changes or would they have happened anyway? How are these developments affecting students at your institution? Have changes been made to academic work practices? What effects are these changes having on educational quality, research, and institutional reputation? What are the higher education management and leadership challenges? The study is being conducted in partnership between the International Association of Universities (IAU) and the Higher Education Policy Research Unit (HEPRU), Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland. At this stage, we are seeking Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) that would like to participate in this first international study of how the ongoing global economic crisis is impacting on higher education and, especially, on individual institutions. We aim for approximately 50 participant institutions in order to provide a balanced representation in terms of geographic/regional location and institutional mission.
Participants will be asked to complete a comprehensive on-line self-study questionnaire, covering a series of issues under the following five (5) headings. HEI Mission HEI Strategy HEI Finance HEI Quality HEI Work Practices
In addition, we will ask for some basic information about your institution, in order to correlate experiences with specific types of institutions and world regions. All data collected will adhere to research ethics protocols; the anonymity of each institution will be protected in all resulting publications. We anticipate it should take approx. 1 hour to complete. It is intended to hold a Roundtable Meeting with participating institutions in early 2013, in order to provide an opportunity for higher education leaders to share their experiences of responding to the new situation. Results of the research will be presented at forthcoming IAU and other conferences; publication of the full results will follow in summer 2013. Each participating institutions will receive a copy of the report. We welcome the participation of your institution in this study:
1) Confirm your participation no later than 31 July 2012. Send the name of your institutional contact person, title and email to: Martin Ryan at martin.ryan@dit.ie. The questionnaire will be sent to you upon receipt of the confirmation.
2) Complete the on-line Self-Study questionnaire no later than 30 September 2012.
20 mai 2012

Training of Quality Assurance

http://www.ecaconsortium.net/images/logo.jpgThe European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA) is holding a Conference on the Training of Quality Assurance (QA) Panel Members in Madrid, Spain, from 14 to 15 June 2012.

This conference will disseminate the results of the E-TRAIN project, which has developed a "train the trainers workshop" for agencies and a knowledge base for experts and QA staff. It is aimed at quality assurance experts, agencies and policy makers, to share procedures and good practice in trainings. For more information, visit the ECA website.
The number of experts participating in QA procedures in other countries than their own is increasing. ECA contributes to this positive development by organising trainings for these experts and setting up a pool of European experts. The E-TRAIN project has started these initiatives. In addition, a train the trainers workshop for agencies and a knowledge base for experts and QA staff have been developed. It is now time to disseminate these results to a wider audience.
Are you an expert or do you want to become an expert in QA procedures in other countries? Are you from an agency interested in good practices in trainings or in training and sharing European experts? Or are you a QA policy maker from an institution, association or government organisation? In all these cases this conference will probably be useful for you and you are cordially invited to participate. You can find the draft programme, logistical information and the registration facility in the menu at the left of this page.
See also The Website of the European Consortium for Accreditation in higher education (ECA).
Newsletter
50 abonnés
Visiteurs
Depuis la création 2 794 300
Formation Continue du Supérieur
Archives