Formation Continue du Supérieur

By Pam Jones. The New York Times dubbed 2012 'The Year of the MOOC,'[i] and it has since become one of the hottest topics in education. An idea pioneered by the higher education sector in the US, MOOCs take open learning to a new level. There are several providers associated with top universities who are paving the way, such as Udacity, Coursera, and edX.
What is a MOOC?

• Stands for a Massive Open Online Course
• An online course aimed at large-scale participation and open access via the internet
• Similar to university courses, but do not tend to offer academic credit
• There are no entry requirements and courses are free
• MOOCs are delivered via a number of web-based platforms in a wide range of subjects
• Learners interact with instructors and fellow participants in online forums

Key benefits of MOOCs
Like any form of elearning, a key advantage of MOOCs over traditional classroom-based learning is their convenience. MOOCs offer self-paced learning with interactive instructor and peer support through online social platforms. Read more...

For the second time, the international network of 24 research universities called Universitas 21 has published an overview of national higher education systems across the world. Rather than assessing individual universities, the U21 ranking brings in indicators that are seldom used in other rankings in an attempt to highlight the importance of a strong higher education environment. It is thus fighting the main criticism against global rankings, i.e. that the research output of elite universities cannot reflect the contribution of education to a country’s social and economic development.
Similar to the European Commission’s U-Multirank, the U21 ranking uses a large variety of criteria, divided into four broad measures: Resources, Environment, Connectivity and Output. In an holistic approach, it provides data on tertiary enrolment rates, the proportion of international students, international research collaboration, public and private funding, investment in research and development, output of research journal articles (per country and per head of population), ratio of researchers in the economy, etc. However, these criteria cannot be combined or singled out.
In the 2013 U21 ranking, some 48 countries’ higher education systems were ranked according to those criteria. The top 1 country is the United States, followed by Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Australia, Singapore and the United Kingdom. These results are very similar to the 2012 U21 ranking (with the exception of Singapore replacing Norway, which now ranks 12th) and do not tell us much more than other rankings have been telling us.
One major flaw of the ranking, which Universitas 21 willingly admits, is the lack of a variable on the quality of teaching measures, due to the difficulty to collect data allowing a comparison across countries. Last year’s ranking also showed they had some problems measuring connectivity (see ACA Newsletter – Education Europe, May 2012). One could also deplore the small amount of countries analysed (50 out of a database of approximately 200), as developing countries in Africa or Latin America could benefit from the information withheld in such a ranking.

Universitas 21

In 2011, the European Commission came up with a Communication entitled Modernising Europe’s higher education systems. This document unfolded the Commission’s policy objectives mainly for intra-European cooperation in the tertiary sector. A similar document, relating to the Commission’s intentions in a global context, is expected to follow, most probably in June. The ACA Newsletter - Education Europe has been able to gain insight into some of the key issues of this document, which is likely to be named European higher education in the world.
One of the principle notions behind the document is that of comprehensive internationalisation strategies, which universities and member states are expected to develop and pursue. Such strategies would entail at least three elements: the mobility of students and staff (plus related issues such as recognition, visas, etc.); the internationalisation of curricula (known as ‘internationalisation at home’) and digitally-based learning; as well as strategic cooperation, partnerships and capacity building. At the level of detail, one can spot many of the pet subjects of recent years, but also new phenomena. One of those is the MOOCs, which the document will apparently highlight as a major development in higher education, even though it is not entirely clear which conclusions to draw from this assessment.
Concerning its own EU-level contribution, the Commission is likely to point to the increased opportunities for third-country cooperation under the new Erasmus for All Programme (which may carry another name in the final version) and the Marie Curie scheme, as well as to U-Multirank and its various other ‘transparency tools’. From all we know, the Communication will at long last pick up a long-time ACA proposal for complementing national information and marketing efforts by a European promotion dimension. It also appears that there are plans to widen the ‘evidence base’ supporting policies on global higher education, by commissioning studies, statistical analysis and expert consultation.

The Finnish Centre for International Mobility (CIMO) is about to launch a new survey to measure the attitudes of tertiary education students during a study abroad period, and the way these attitudes change. In short: how students think about ‘difference‘ and how they engage with it. The survey has been developed together with Professor Vanessa Andreotti de Oliveira from the University of Oulu and her research team.
The aim of the survey is to gain more profound knowledge on the effects of an international experience at individual level and will provide us with information on the impacts of international education. The Global Mindedness (GM) instrument is based on a distinction between three different ways in which individuals can think about and engage with ‘difference’. These are referred to as ‘dispositions’, in particular dispositions of Tourism, Empathy and Visiting. Unlike ‘competencies’, dispositions do not guarantee behavioural patterns. The distinction between the three dispositions was originally developed by Professor Gert Biesta and based on ideas from the philosopher Hannah Arendt. The GM instrument suggests that we carry all three dispositions with us at all times and when faced with ‘difference’, a combination of dispositions manifests itself. The GM instrument makes it possible to assess which combination of dispositions is available to individuals. It also makes it possible to map changes in available dispositions over time.
At this first pilot stage, the survey is targeted to outgoing students in Finnish Higher Education Institutions. Students will take two surveys: one before and one after their international experience. In the first survey they will answer 21 questions assessing their global mindedness and a set of socio-demographic questions. In the second survey they will answer the same 21 questions again and a selection of questions that evaluate the impact of their international experience.
The first pilot phase of the survey opened this month. First results should be available early 2014, after the respondents have returned home.
For more information about the survey please contact Ms Irma Garam at Irma.garam@cimo.fi.

CIMO

The EAR, which stands for the European Area of Recognition, is a project co-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission and different national recognition information centres (ENIC NARICs). One of the main outcomes of the project is the EAR manual for higher education institutions (EAR HEI), a practical guide with standards and guidelines in the field of the recognition of foreign qualifications. A survey carried out in 2012 (see ACA Newsletter – Education Europe, May 2012) had already shown that especially admission officers were in need for a practical manual with recommendations for good practice. In 2013, the testing phase for the EAR recognition manual was successfully completed. Close to 450 institutions from over 30 countries responded to the survey conducted in March and April 2013.
Respondents were asked to comment on the readability and applicability of the manual. Around 80% found the guide easy/very easy to read, and over 80% thought it a useful/very useful guide in daily practice. Hundreds of small suggestions for improvement were made, some of them very encouraging.
The first test version of the guide is produced by the EAR HEI project team, coordinated by Nuffic (the Netherlands organisation for international cooperation in higher education). The ENIC NARICs involved come from the Netherlands, France, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark, and Ireland. The project team further includes the European University Association (EUA), the Tuning network, the European Student Union (ESU-ESIB), the German Rectors Conference (HRK), the special advisor from USNEI, the President of the ENIC network and the President of the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee.
The EAR HEI manual is expected by the end of 2013. For further information, please contact Ms Jenneke Lokhoff (coordinator) at jlokhoff@nuffic.nl.

EAR project

NUFFIC  

To MOOCers and shakers in the world of higher education, the question about MOOCs now is not merely “to MOOC or not to MOOC”, but “how to MOOC strategically” when more and more universities are jumping onto the bandwagon of MOOCs. This month, the two major MOOC providers Coursera and edX both announced that they have successfully attracted many more institutions to partner with them. Coursera, in addition, has partnered with several major publishers, such as Macmillan Higher Education, SAGE and Oxford University Press, to provide teaching and learning materials to the students at no cost.
MOOC stands for Massive Open Online Courses. The massive coverage of discussions about MOOCs in the media, both pros and cons (see ACA Newsletter - Education Europe, February 2013), have convinced both enthusiasts and sceptics in the world of higher education that MOOCs, like global university rankings, are “here to stay”. More and more universities, including Yale University, which have been hesitant to join the MOOC race, are compelled to MOOC along with their peers.
Believe it or not, MOOCs are all over the place, in the newspapers, in conferences, and even in university board meetings. According to a Gallup survey and some follow-up enquiries conducted by Inside Higher Ed, US university presidents are under increasing pressure to look into the impact of MOOCs on their “business model”. However, most of the presidents are sceptical about the potential of MOOCs in improving the learning of all students or solving colleges’ financial challenges, as opposed to the trustees from the business world who are keen to rush into the MOOC race.
On the other hand, some MOOC optimists continue to test the water. Georgia Institute of Technology, partnering with AT&T and Udacity Inc. (a private MOOC provider), has just announced a plan to offer a fee-paying MOOC master’s degree programme. Students formally “admitted” to the programme will pay a fraction (approx. USD 7 000 / EUR 5 500) of the tuition fee of the same on-campus offer to complete the programme online in roughly three years. The business model is built on a multi-track system, allowing all the learners to take the courses for free, while charging some others based on the credentials they desire to obtain. In other words, the students pay for the degree or credits rather than the content that they obtain online.
In the current MOOC race, the spotlight has been following the speed rather than the best. Being the first is all that matters to make a splash in the media. The rules of the game may soon change, however, with more MOOC players, including platforms and content-providers from all around the world, going into the field. By that time, perhaps it would not be a big surprise to see university rankers stepping into the scene to bring some order to the chaos. After all, global university rankings and MOOCs (in their current state) have involved more or less the same group of flagship universities, whereas MOOCs seem to provide exactly the missing indicators of “teaching quality” and “community engagement” that rankers have been searching for years.
The future is difficult to predict. What is sure to happen on 10 October 2013 is ACA’s next policy seminar on MOOCs. Save the date and come MOOC with us.

EdX

Coursera

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Inside Higher Ed

European Commission – Elements of the political agreement

European Commission – Statement by President Barroso.