Formation Continue du Supérieur

By Marielk. The EU has a new resource page that features updated data (latest update in Nov 2012) on research activities in EU countries, sorted by country. The map includes a list of projects in the countries that have received EU funding or have partners in that particular country. In addition, the individual country profiles have updated information about research and innovation in these countries. While not comprehensive, they provide a quick glance to the RDI landscape in Europe.
Some interesting bits of information can be extracted from the data available. For instance, did you know that:

• Sweden invests 3.4 % of GDP in R&D,and is thus amongst the world leaders in terms of R&D intensity and as the leader of EUs Innovation scoreboard
• Researchers from Germany most commonly work together with researchers from UK in European projects, and Germany receives the largest share of EU research budget
• Denmark is  rapidly catching up in the innovation indicators and reached the 3% of GDP to research already in 2009
• In the Netherlands, the level of private investment to R&D is well below EU average, composing of 0.88% of the GDP. However, the Netherlands has a high success rate in EU applications (over 25%)
• While Italy receives fourth largest share of EU research funding, the investment to R&D in Italy is relatively modest, around 1.26% in 2010
• While Finland currently does well in the innovation rankings, there are great concerns about finding new research intensive industries
• Estonia increased funding to R&D with an average of 10% each year between 2000 and 2010, from 0.60% to 1.62% in 2010

All of the country profiles and information can be found here.

« Les programmes européens de formation et de recherche dans l’enseignement supérieur : état des lieux et perspectives sur l’Espace Euro-méditerranéen » - 27 novembre 2012 - Colloque International Bordeaux sous la Présidence de l’Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
Derniers jours pour les inscriptions. Télécharger le Programme, télécharger la Présentation des intervenants et télécharger le bulletin d’inscription. Contacts: Jacqueline BERGERON, Présidente: jacqueline.bergeron@free.fr, Gilles ROUET, Secrétaire Général: gilles.rouet@gmail.com, Gérard WORMSER, Président du Conseil Scientifique: g.wormser@worldonline.fr. Avec l'appui de la Région Aquitaine, la participation de la Mairie de Bordeaux et la collaboration de la Maison de l'Europe Bordeaux Aquitaine.
Présentation générale
La stratégie 2020 met l’accent sur une croissance intelligente, durable et inclusive, elle repose sur plusieurs lignes directrices, celles de l’éducation et de la formation sont au premier plan au titre de la dotation en qualifications, compétences mais également de l’inclusion sociale. Pour suivre ces orientations, deux axes phares sont mis en avant: celui de la mobilité des étudiants des enseignants et des chercheurs, celui du développement de coopérations créatives, ouvertes sur la diversité des acteurs (politiques, institutionnels, économiques, sociaux…).
Au-delà des collaborations entre établissements d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche, ces orientations incitent au développement de partenariats mixtes, au sein de territoires diversifiés. Les programmes européens d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche sont l’occasion de nouveaux maillages avec le monde économique, les collectivités territoriales, plus généralement les organisations qui concourent de façon formelle ou non formelle à la transmission de savoirs. La situation géopolitique méditerranéenne fait peser depuis plusieurs mois sur les institutions universitaires de fortes responsabilités dans le domaine de la formation de la jeunesse et des attentes spécifiques en matière de développement de projets communs.
Le dialogue, les échanges, la coopération avec les pays du sud de la méditerranée sont vivement encouragés par la commission européenne dans le cadre de projets partagés portés par les institutions universitaires. L’espace euro-méditerranéen se trouve ainsi au coeur de l’applicabilité pour le développement de la mobilité, la création d’un cadre plus large de certification et de reconnaissance des diplômes, l’ouverture vers de nouvelles stratégies d’apprentissage, un regard renouvelé sur le statut de la connaissance. En contrepoint, les pays du voisinage, acteurs européens de plein exercice, semblent développer depuis plusieurs années une force économique en prenant appui sur les programmes européens de formation tout au long de la vie.
Ce contexte nous conduit à concevoir d’autres formes d’échanges et de travail scientifiques communautaires à partir des expériences conduites au travers des programmes européens. Ces expériences formatives conduisent-elles vers une gouvernance améliorée de l’éducation et de la formation dans une alliance euro-méditerranéenne? Les programmes transnationaux peuvent-ils être envisagés comme levier pour un engagement plus démocratique des acteurs permettant le renforcement des droits de toute personne à l’éducation et la formation à la recherche, étant entendu que cette dernière ne peut être agie que dans le respect de la capacité et la démarche d’apprentissage de chacun, la reconnaissance des compétences, la valorisation des expériences au service d’une meilleure inclusion sociale et professionnelle?
Ce colloque permettra d’aborder ces questions à travers des échanges d’expériences, des témoignages, des lectures issues de champs scientifiques transdisciplinaires en lien avec les évolutions qu’il faut envisager à l’horizon de la mise en place du programme Erasmus pour Tous en 2014. Il sera suivi d’une publication.
Cycle de conférences 2013
1er trimestre 2013 (date communiquée ultérieurement): "L'Islam et le monde Arabe contemporain, comprendre les cultures, co-construire les formations sur l'espace euro-méditerranéen" en partenariat avec l'IFUM d'Aix Marseille.

By Judith S. Eaton. We are again talking about innovation in higher education and it is a refreshing change. The most conspicuous, challenging and controversial subject of these discussions is “MOOCs” – massive open online courses. MOOCs such as Coursera, Udacity and edX, all launched in early 2012, have received extensive media coverage accompanied by a lot of commentary. What type of education is offered here? Will it last? How do we judge its quality? Is there a role for accreditation?
MOOCs: "Direct-to-Students" Education
MOOCs are a form of “direct-to-students” education: Students do not need to enroll in a college or university; offerings are available on-demand to anyone. Students do not need to become involved in a federal or state student assistance program, paying little (even as compared to lower-cost community college tuition) or nothing for the offerings. Students are not bound by an academic calendar with semesters or courses and they are not part of a structured degree program. MOOCs provide an opportunity for connection between internationally known professors from elite institutions and millions of students.
MOOCs take creative advantage of current technology that not only allows for a massification but approaches a universalization of higher education once barely imaginable. Offerings involve consideration of a concept or skill, generally via video, followed by exercises or quizzes. They sometimes rely on an approach to teaching and learning that removes faculty from the heart of the educational experience, pushing students to use their own initiative to seek out and benefit from learning experiences, much as the healthcare industry has modeled greater patient responsibility for sustaining health. This shift away from the traditional central role for faculty is one of the more controversial aspects of MOOCs.
MOOCs also build on longstanding practices in higher education, including continuing education, online education and competency-based education such as the work of Western Governor’s University (WGU) and Excelsior University. WGU, since its inception in 1997, has been offering online, competency-based education. Excelsior, founded in 1971 as Regents College in New York, has been a pioneer of adult and online learning. MIT’s Open Courseware initiative has been around for 10 years, as has Carnegie Mellon University’s Open Learning Initiative. Straighterline, a private company offering low-cost online courses since 2009, has established transfer partnerships with a number of institutions and, most recently, entered into agreements with Education Testing Service and the Collegiate Learning Assessment that allow students to be tested and attempt to transfer their Straighterline credits. However, the scale of MOOCs, their extensive online presence, their international appeal and tuition-free approach set them apart even as they reflect some traditional features.
What is a MOOC experience worth to a student? Students can receive an acknowledgment of their achievement by earning certificates or “badges” that affirm mastery of skills or specific portions of learning. This can help with employers and obtaining a job. The Mozilla Foundation has constructed an electronic platform to support the issuing, collecting and sharing of badges. Students may also convert MOOC experiences to college credit. UC-Berkeley is exploring the award of transfer credit to California community college students who enroll in Berkeley MOOCs. Colorado State University-Global Campus is offering credit for MOOCs. Will longstanding organizations devoted to assessment of prior learning such as the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning and the American Council on Education’s College Credit Recommendation Service include MOOC experiences in their scrutiny?
MOOCs, Quality and Accreditation
As with any effort at change in higher education, the emergence of MOOCs has quickly been accompanied by questions about their quality, a key element in their staying power. Are students learning? How do we know? Such discussions often lead to discussion of accreditation, higher education’s primary means of assuring and improving quality. If there is a role for accreditation with MOOCs, what might this be? If accreditation is not an appropriate vehicle for quality review for MOOCs, what is? Questions include:

1. Through what lens do we examine MOOCs for quality? With traditional higher education, we have a lens through which to determine baseline quality. This includes curricula, faculty and student support, for example. Does it make sense to judge MOOCs through the lens of traditional higher education? Or, do we need a different lens and what is this?
2. Do MOOCs call for additional rethinking of expectations of teaching and learning – beyond current conversations? MOOCs may not have faculty in the traditional sense, curricula may come from elsewhere and traditional student support may be absent. MOOCs offer:
   • Alternative delivery of instruction – noncredit offerings to a mass, potentially universal, audience.
   • Alternative approaches to instruction – a more modest faculty role, expanded reliance on students and peer-to-peer grading and auto-grading.
   • Alternative evaluation of learning – use of data analytics.
3. To what extent does current accreditation review address the key features of MOOCs? The 80 U.S. recognized accreditors review and accredit programs, colleges and universities. Accreditation review includes attention to continuing education and most accreditors address online learning and competency–based education. Regional and faith-related accreditation address degree education; the national career-related accreditors review both degree and non-degree postsecondary education. At present, accreditors are not focused on the scale of MOOCs, do not accredit elements of courses and still expect that faculty play a significant role in students’ educational experiences.
4. If accreditation is to address MOOCs, what needs to be done? Accrediting organizations were created by traditional higher education and have changed as traditional institutions have changed. If MOOCs continue to build connections with colleges and universities that result in the conversion of MOOC experiences into college credit, what tools do accreditors need? Is such scrutiny desirable or valuable? Will the review process change and, if so, how?
5. If it is not appropriate for accreditation to address quality in this context, what are alternative forms of quality review? Do alternative tools need to be created? If so, what are their characteristics? What are other approaches to determining quality that might be developed?

MOOCs offer an unusual direct-to-student opportunity for expansion of learning, apart from the traditional structure of programs and degrees. Whether ultimately apart from or connected to the environment of currently accepted teaching and learning, judgment about quality will be essential. The questions above provide a start to address how to judge quality in MOOCS and determine whether accreditation is the appropriate tool for assuring and improving quality in this environment. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation began to focus on this issue at its 2012 Summer Workshop and is continuing the dialogue at various meetings, including its upcoming 2013 Annual Conference.

The Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) Board of Directors has appointed 19 individuals to the Advisory Council of the CHEA International Quality Group (CIQG).
“This is a group of respected leaders in higher education, accreditation and quality assurance internationally,” said CHEA President Judith Eaton. “We are fortunate to have these outstanding colleagues to help guide the CIQG and its work.”
The advisory council will provide guidance with regard to strategic direction, membership development and projects that the CIQG will undertake, as well as identifying key trends and issues in international quality assurance.
The advisory council is made up of individuals from the academic and accreditation/quality assurance communities in a number of countries, reflecting geographic diversity and expertise in international quality assurance, as well as individuals from major multinational organizations that focus on higher education or quality assurance.
Members appointed to the CIQG Advisory Council are:

• Nadia Badrawi, President, Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (Egypt)
• Barbara Brittingham, President, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, New England Association of Schools and Colleges (USA)
• Sir John Daniel, Education Master, Beijing DeTao Masters Academy (China)
• Mark Darby, Counselor, Australian Education International (Australia)
• A. Lee Fritschler, Professor, School of Public Policy, George Mason University (United States)
• Allan Goodman, President, Institute for International Education (USA)
• Madlyn L. Hanes, Vice President, Commonwealth Campuses, Pennsylvania State University (United States)
• Maria Jose Lemaitre, Director, Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo and President, International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (Chile)
• Michael Milligan, Executive Director, ABET (United States)
• Judy C. Miner, President, Foothill College (United States)
• Deane Neubauer, Senior Fellow, Globalization Research Center, University of Hawaii – Manoa (United States)
• Michal Neumann, Deputy Director General for Quality Assessment, Council for Higher Education (Israel)
• Peter Okebukola, President, Global University Network for Innovation – Africa (Nigeria)
• Ved Prakash, Vice Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi (India)
• Jamil Salmi, Consultant, Global Tertiary Education Expert, Global View on Tertiary Education (United States)
• Craig Swenson, Chancellor, Argosy University (United States)
• Lesley Wilson, Secretary General, European University Association (Belgium)
• Richard Yelland, Head of Division, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (France)
• Jianxin Zhang, Director, Research Institute of Higher Education, Yunnan University (China)

In addition, David G. Carter, Chair of the CHEA Board of Directors, Judith Eaton, CHEA’s President and Stamenka Uvalić-Trumbić, CHEA’s Senior Advisor on International Affairs, will serve as Ex Officio members of the advisory council. Launched in September, 2012, the CIQG provides an important forum for colleges, universities, accrediting and quality assurance organizations and others worldwide to address issues and challenges focused on quality and quality assurance in an international setting.

Cedefop's medium-term skills forecasts have proven very popular. But how does the skills project approach the topic and draw conclusions?   
This publication provides an overview of the methods underpinning the project. Cedefop’s forecast is not intended to replace forecasting efforts in individual countries, but to share the knowledge acquired during the development of different systems and methods, and to highlight the results. This shared knowledge can help to improve the methods used in each country and to resolve outstanding issues.
Cedefop’s forecast can also inspire new forecasting initiatives.
The feedback provided by countries can in turn help make the European forecast even more precise. The more solid the method, the more reliable the results. Download Skills supply and demand in Europe.
Introduction
1.1. Background and rationale
Equipping the labour force with the right skills is one of the key policy focuses of the European Union’s (EU) strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Anticipation of skill needs has received more attention in the EU, as illustrated by several policy documents such as the Integrated guidelines for growth and jobs (2008-10) (European Commission, 2007), the Council Resolution on new skills for new jobs, and the Spring 2008 Council Conclusions (Council of the European Union, 2007; 2008), in which the EU Member States asked the European Commission to report on future skills requirements in Europe up to 2020. New skills for new jobs: action now (European Commission, 2010a), a report prepared by an expert group set up by the European Commission, also emphasised the need for a coordinated approach to improve Europe’s capacity to anticipate change. After a wide consultation among stakeholders, the Commission included the New skills and jobs agenda as a flagship initiative in the EU 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2010b).
It is in this context that Cedefop conducts regular, coherent and systematic skill demand and supply forecasts. In 2008, Cedefop released the first pan-European skill needs forecast, i.e. employment projections by sector, occupation and qualification level across Europe up to 2015. In 2009, Cedefop forecast the supply of skills by gender, age group and qualification level. Finally, in 2010 the first parallel forecast of skill supply and demand up to 2020 was presented.
A variety of forecasting methods are used. The accuracy of methods must be tested and compared with available alternatives to increase the quality of results. At the same time statistical authorities publish new data regularly. Finally, forecasting is an ongoing exercise, affected by changing reality, which means it is important to use the most up-to-date information and to reflect trends and changes to achieve the most reliable results.
This publication presents the complex methodological framework used by Cedefop to forecast skills supply and demand and some current attempts to improve it. It does not promote Cedefop’s methodology as the only correct methodology. Moreover, Cedefop’s forecast does not replace those conducted at national level. Instead, this publication presents the problems that we have encountered and the solutions we have adopted to produce a unique pan-European skills supply and demand forecast
1.2. General overview of the methodological framework
Europe’s pan-European forecast of skill needs requires complex methods, relying on long-term research and drawing on the expertise of several high-level European research institutions. The modelling tools have been designed to enable further development and customisation. The general framework consists of methods developed in two pilot studies on Future skills needs in Europe (Cedefop, 2008) and Future skill supply in Europe (Cedefop, 2009). These were combined to produce the first pan-European forecast of skills supply and demand in Europe (Cedefop, 2010). Forecasting is a dynamic process, and important developments took place in 2010 made possible by the modular approach adopted, which enables the different parts of the system to be improved independently. As shown in Figure 1, the model breaks down into different building blocks and into several interrelated components.
Even though the modelling framework has proven to be rather robust, a dialogue must be established with experts from European countries, who are likely to have much greater knowledge of employment trends and data sources within their own countries. By making it easy to incorporate new data and alternative or additional assumptions, the modelling framework provides an opportunity for knowledge and input of experts to be built in efficiently and transparently.
The project involved developing consistent databases and related tools to produce a comprehensive and consistent set of skill projections for all EU Member States plus Norway and Switzerland (EU-27+). The system, models and modules rely upon official data sources, drawing primarily on Eurostat, in particular on Eurostat demographic data, national accounts (NA), the EU labour force survey (EU-LFS), as well as additional data on flows of qualifications. Compilation and harmonisation of the best possible data available for measuring employment was a major achievement of the project. Historically, most countries have invested considerable resources in developing data for their NA. In many respects estimates of employment on this basis are to be preferred as they are consistent with other key economic indicators, such as output and productivity. On the other hand, the EU-LFS has the advantage of providing measures of employment structured by skills (occupation and qualification), as well as by gender and age, which are not available from NA-based estimates.
1.2.1. Supply of skills
The skill supply projections produce consistent pan-European projections broken down by age, gender and formal qualification. The results indicate the future skill supply by highest qualification held as well as by age groups and gender for the population and labour force aged 15 and over. The skill supply projections are compatible with the skills demand projections (when focusing on qualifications).
The historical analysis and projections of overall labour supply by age and gender are provided by an extended version of the existing pan-European macroeconomic model E3ME developed by Cambridge econometrics, which incorporates a new demographic and labour-supply module. E3ME models labour supply as a function of economic activity, real wage rates, unemployment and other benefit rates. At present, the model parameters are estimated for labour market participation in each country by gender and separately for different age groups. This is of key importance for modelling educational participation and attainment since these are known to be gender and age specific. This expanded model framework is then used to create a detailed set of baseline projections for labour supply, disaggregated by country, age groups and gender and covering a 10-15 year period. This model forms a key input for the analysis of the supply of qualifications and provides the link between economic activity and labour market supply. Finally, this link can be used to provide a range of projections of available skills through scenario-based analysis around the baseline forecast, indicating areas that are most sensitive to the economic climate and change.
Modelling and forecasting the supply of qualifications ideally requires a detailed and comprehensive stock-flow model, with behavioural links which can be used to predict the distribution of people in the total population and labour force (employed and unemployed people) by highest qualification held. In practice, this ideal is hard to realise, as a detailed demographic or educational and labour market accounting system is still lacking at EU level.
The methods currently used for modelling forecasts are less ambitious. They range from rather simple models, based on fitting trends of aggregate qualification patterns among the population and/or labour force, to more sophisticated approaches based on econometric analysis of microdata on individuals, mainly using LFS data. All focus on overall stocks rather than flows.
1.2.2. Demand for skills
The demand side involves four main elements or modules. Each module contains its own database and models. The results focus on future demand trends at a pan-European level (EU-27+): by sector (up to 41 industries based on NACE classification); by occupation (up to 27 occupations based on ISCO classification); by qualification (three broad levels based on the ISCED classification); plus replacement demands by occupation and qualification. Together these produce estimates of the numbers of job openings (net employment change plus replacement demand) by skill (as measured by occupation and by qualification). The detailed classifications and aggregations used are provided in Annex 2.
The forecast of employment by economic sector is provided by a module which is based on results from the existing pan-European multisectoral macroeconomic model (E3ME). This model delivers a set of consistent sectoral employment projections, which are transparent in terms of the assumptions made about the main external influences on the various countries (including technological change and the impact of global competition).
E3ME combines the features of an annual short- and medium-term sectoral model, estimated by formal econometric methods, with the detail and some of the methods of the computable general equilibrium models that provide analysis of the movement of the long-term outcomes. It can also be used for dynamic policy simulation and for forecasting and projecting over the medium and long term.
The LFS conducted in all countries provides a source of information for the construction of occupation-industry matrices of employment. These surveys have the advantage of being conducted regularly. They also adopt standardised sets of questions and systems of classification. While there are still some differences among countries, LFS provide a broadly consistent set of data which can be used for producing occupational employment projections within the industries identified in macroeconomic models such as E3ME. The forecasting module designed to calculate changes in employment (expansion demand) by occupation (EDMOD) based on these data works out the implications for occupational employment.
Occupational employment patterns are only one way of measuring skills. An occupational category can be understood as broadly describing a particular job (related tasks, requirements, position, etc.). Qualifications represent the characteristics of people filling these jobs as well as one of the selection criteria for filling a particular job. From the education and training policy and planning point of view, the types of qualifications typically required are important. Even with only weak data for (formal) qualifications, it has been possible to develop the module (QMOD) which allows inferences to be made about implications for qualifications.
In addition to changes in overall occupational employment levels, it is important to consider replacement demand arising from outflows from a job/occupation, such as retirements and deaths, transition to non-employment, net migration and inter-occupational mobility. Estimating replacement demand is not straightforward and is quite sensitive to the data sources used. Ideally, detailed data on labour market outflows and transitions (mainly retirements and occupational mobility) would be required to analyse replacement demand more accurately. However, these are not currently available and therefore this forecast relies on a methodology that is based on stocks of age-cohorts by occupation and qualification, and excludes transitions from one occupation to another.
From the LFS, it is possible to analyse the demographic composition of each occupation. This allows specific rates of retirement to be estimated for each occupational class (but still not taking account of inter-occupational mobility). LFS data can also be used to estimate rates of outflow. The replacement demand model (RDMOD) has been developed on the basis of data sources that are similar to the occupational model (EDMOD). The model is driven in part by the occupational and qualification employment levels projected from EDMOD and QMOD, combined with models and information on the probability of leaving employment owing to retirement or migration and for other reasons (e.g. transition to inactivity).
1.2.3. Comparing skill supply and demand
To provide information on possible labour market imbalances and skill mismatches, a further module (BALMOD) has been added. This module compares the skill demand and skill supply projections (focusing on qualifications) and attempts to reconcile the two.
The possibility to analyse potential skill imbalances in the labour market is important from a policy and individual point of view. Such information can, in conjunction with corresponding demand estimates, shed light on possible future developments in European labour markets, highlighting potential mismatches and thus helping to inform decisions on investments in skills (especially in formal qualifications) made by individuals, organisations and policy-makers.
However, simply comparing current demand and supply projections is problematic for both practical and theoretical reasons. Although the two sets of results are based on common data and are carried out simultaneously, they do not incorporate direct interactions between supply and demand and, therefore, they cannot be directly compared. Cedefop has started to work on modelling interactions between supply and demand, but due to the complexity of the task these interactions might be incorporated only in the medium to long term. There are various other conceptual and methodological issues regarding imbalances that need to be considered to avoid misleading inferences and interpretations.
A final adjustment has been made to the estimates of employment by qualification (demand side) to take account of the labour market accounts residual. This residual measures the difference between employment as measured for the NA estimates (workplace based, jobs) and the corresponding LFS estimates (heads, residence based). Both measures are used in the project (5). The difference between the NA and LFS can be quite significant and needs to be considered, especially when comparing demand and supply.
Differences between skill demand and supply can include:
(a) double jobbing (some people have more than one job) or one full-time job is shared by two or more people;
(b) distinction between residence and workplace (many people do not live in the same country as they work; this is especially significant for some small countries such as Luxembourg);
(c) participants in training and related schemes who are also working in parallel (they may be included in the labour force and in education statistics – double counting);
(d) different definitions of unemployment (e.g. ILO definition versus limited to unemployment beneficiaries);
(e) statistical errors (in measures of employment, unemployment and related indicators, including sampling and measurements errors);
(f) other differences due to the use of different data sources such as treatment of nationals working abroad.

Par Charles Centofanti. Sophie Morlaix, pro­fes­seure en sciences de l'éducation, et Cathy Perret, ingé­nieure de recherche à l'université de Bourgogne, ont mené une recherche sur les effets du Plan Réussite en Licence (PRL) lancé en 2007 par Valérie Pécresse, alors ministre de l'enseignement supé­rieur. Entretien avec Sophie Morlaix.
Vous poin­tez des résul­tats "déce­vants" du PRL. Quelles sont les rai­sons de cet échec?
Notre recherche met au jour une situa­tion pré­oc­cu­pante avec un échec mas­sif et des résul­tats moins bons, année après année. Cela pose un cer­tain nombre de ques­tions, notam­ment par rap­port au chan­ge­ment observé, sur six années, dans la struc­ture de la popu­la­tion étudiante arri­vant en L1: la pro­por­tion de bache­liers non géné­raux aux résul­tats plus médiocres, c'est-à-dire avec moins de men­tion et sou­vent en retard, s'accroît. Autre pro­blème: il n'y a pas eu de consignes pré­cises d'application de ce plan qui défi­nis­sait des objec­tifs très géné­raux (réno­va­tion des conte­nus, mise en place d'un ensei­gnant réfé­rent pour chaque étudiant, accrois­se­ment du volume horaire...) et lais­sait les équipes péda­go­giques libres d'adapter ce plan en fonc­tion des situa­tions locales. Dans une note parue en 2010, l'Inspection Générale de l'Administration, de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche (IGAEN) poin­tait déjà le fait que les uni­ver­si­tés éprou­vaient "de réelles dif­fi­cul­tés à iden­ti­fier les cré­dits PRL et à en assu­rer le suivi" et que l'application du plan était très inégale selon les universités. Suite de l'article...

Par Sylvestre Huet. Reprenez la gestion de nos salaires! C'est l'appel pour le moins virulent lancé par 14 présidents d'Université à Geneviève Fioraso, Ministre de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche.
Un appel étrange: pourquoi refuser l'autonomie, dont tout le monde rêve? C'est que, rétorque les présidents d'universités signataires, ils ont été dupés par le pouvoir politique. Ce dernier leur a délégué la gestion de la masse salariale des universités... mais en transférant moins d'argent que nécessaire pour payer les personnels et les frais afférents à une telle opération. Du coup, les présidents se trouvent confrontés à un choix cornélien: pour payer les personnels, puiser dans les fonds prévus pour les activités pédagogiques et scientifiques.
Alors que les Assises nationales de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche doivent s'ouvrir le 26 novembre au Collège de France, la pression monte sur le ministère. Les Assises territoriales ont permis l'expression de revendications très fortes sur les réformes de structures ou le financement (lire ici le document des Assises du Languedoc Roussillon). Les précaires se font entendre et s'organisent (lire cette note).
Voici le texte des 14 présidents. Voir l'article entier...

By James Marshall Crotty. As noted in my pieces on MITx, edX, Udacity and other Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) platforms, online education is driving today’s higher education revolution. Though the flurry of attention around MOOCs may lead one to conclude that distance learning is a recent phenomenon, it actually dates back over 120 years.
According to a team of Ph.D’s and NASA scientists assembled by Post University, distance learning began in 1892 when the University of Chicago created the first college-level distance learning program. Expanding from this initial use of the U.S. Postal Service for course correspondence, distance education moved towards live radio shows in 1921 and then televised broadcasts in 1963.
In 1970, Coastline Community College became the first college without a physical campus, offering exclusively televised college courses. Many other schools followed Coastline’s lead with televised courses of their own. And, in 1985,  National Technological University became the first school to offer online degree courses via satellite transmission.
In the 1990s and 2000s, distance learning over the Internet became the dominant remote learning craze. As more schools embraced online education, smaller, less well-known colleges and for-profit universities drove further innovation in the online education space.  For instance, in 1993, Jones International University became the first fully online university accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. And, in 2002, MIT launched its popular OpenCourseWare initiative. Babson Research Survey Group and College Board estimate that in the fall of 2010 6.1 million students took at least one online education course. In addition, according to Babson and College Board, 65 percent of higher education institutions say online education is now a critical part of their long-term strategy.
However, what has really blown the virtual lid of online education numbers was the 2011 introduction of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). As noted in a previous Crotty on Education column, in the fall of 2011  Stanford University Professor, Sebastian Thrun, launched a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on artificial intelligence that attracted more than 160,000 students. Thrun’s success inspired other universities — such as Princeton, Penn and the University of Michigan — to join the Stanford MOOC fiesta.
Now a full-blown race to become the dominant MOOC is well underway, with Coursera, World Education University, Udacity, edX and many others competing for critical mass and first-mover advantage. With the tremendous increase of students participating in MOOCs and sundry online courses, distance learners are forced to become even more self-directed, engaged, and collaborative than ever before. As educational technology and students inevitably evolve, distance learning design will need to evolve as well. I have no doubt that  it will, since it’s been doing so since 1892. More...