Formation Continue du Supérieur

3 mars 2012

ePortfolio et enseignement supérieur

Un livre blanc sur le ePortfolio dans l’enseignement supérieur doit être publié au printemps 2012. Objectif: produire des éléments de clarification et de recommandations à l'attention des établissements d'enseignement supérieur français. Il présentera un état des lieux des projets ePortfolio existants. Il proposera un cahier des charges fonctionnel d’un dispositif technique support à la mise en œuvre d’une démarche ePortfolio.
Les dispositifs ePortfolio
Les dispositifs ePortfolio visent à rassembler, dans un environnement numérique, un ensemble de documents et de ressources électroniques qui décrit et illustre l'apprentissage ou la carrière d'une personne, ses expériences, ses travaux et ses compétences. Ils intéressent de façon directe l’enseignement supérieur pour la formation initiale et tout au long de la vie (formalisation des parcours et des référentiels, nouvelles modalités d’acquisition et de repérage des compétences, ...) et pour l’insertion professionnelle (valorisation des acquis et expériences).
En France, le ePorfolio fait pour le moment l’objet d’expériences ponctuelles, de plus ou moins grande ampleur. Ces expériences posent, d’une part, la question de l’inscription de la démarche ePortfolio dans des politiques d’établissement voire interuniversitaires et, d’autre part, la question du passage à des publics plus larges.
Des éléments de clarification et de recommandations
Pour avancer sur ces questions, le service de la stratégie de l'enseignement supérieur et de l'insertion professionnelle (DGESIP) a mis en place un groupe de travail national (G.T.N.) "ePortfolio" en vue de produire des éléments de clarification et de recommandations à l'attention des établissements d'enseignement supérieur français. Ce G.T.N. est supporté par la Mission numérique pour l'enseignement supérieur (MINES). Il a pour objectifs de:
- dresser un état des lieux de la mise en œuvre de la démarche ePortfolio dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur;
- sensibiliser, informer et outiller la gouvernance des établissements, les services d’insertion professionnelle et les enseignants concernant la démarche ePortfolio et sa mise en œuvre, notamment son pilotage politique et pédagogique;
- proposer un cahier des charges fonctionnel d’un dispositif technique support à la mise en œuvre d’une démarche ePortfolio.
Tous ces éléments seront rassemblés dans un livre blanc à paraître au printemps 2012.
Vous pouvez apporter votre contribution:
- en décrivant un projet en cours dans l’enquête état des lieux;
- en participant à l’appel à commentaires du cahier des charges fonctionnel d’un dispositif technique support à la mise en œuvre d’une démarche ePortfolio.
Appel à commentaires sur le cahier des charges fonctionnel
Le cahier des charges fonctionnel soumis à commentaires est destiné à aider les établissements à choisir et adapter des outils ou dispositifs existants, ou bien à développer des systèmes techniques spécifiques, répondant à leurs besoins pour la mise en œuvre de projets ePortfolio dans leurs contextes locaux ou selon des approches interuniversitaires.
Télécharger le cahier des charges fonctionnel V1.0.
Participer à l’appel à commentaires.
Date limite des réponses: 20 mars 2012.
Participer à l'enquête ePortfolio
Cette enquête a pour objectif de réaliser un inventaire des initiatives et projets liés à la démarche ePortfolio.. Elle permettra de favoriser la visibilté et la promotion de ces initiatives, ainsi que de valoriser les retours d'expérience, en particulier dans le livre blanc à paraître au printemps 2012.
Participer à l'enquête état des lieux ePortfolio.
Date limite de réponse à l'enquête: 20 mars 2012.

En hvidbog om den ePortfolio de videregående uddannelser skal offentliggøres i foråret 2012 Formål:. Producere nogle præciseringer og anbefalinger til opmærksomheden hos den franske videregående uddannelsesinstitutioner. Han vil præsentere et overblik over de eksisterende ePortfolio projekter. Det vil give en funktionel specifikation af en teknisk anordning til at støtte gennemførelsen af en ePortfolio tilgang.
Enheder ePortfolio
Enhederne er designet til at samle ePortfolio, i et digitalt miljø, et sæt af dokumenter og elektroniske ressourcer, der beskriver og illustrerer læring eller en persons karriere, sine oplevelser, sit arbejde og kompetencer. De appellerer direkte til højere uddannelse og uddannelse hele livet igennem (formalisering af stier og repositories, nye metoder til køb og tracking færdigheder, ...) og for den erhvervsmæssige integration (forbedring af læring og erfaring). Mere...

Posté par pcassuto à 00:00 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Tags: Enseignement Supérieur

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote

2 mars 2012

University reputations built up over years are vulnerable as never before

By Phil Baty. At first there was much hilarity. When I was named this month among the top 15 “most influential” people in education by The Australian newspaper, the jokes came thick and fast: “You’re only the fourth most influential person in your own household,” said one colleague. “That’s if you don’t include the cat,” added someone a little closer to home.
Appearing in 14th place in the 50-strong list, below Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (in second), but above 33rd-placed Alfred Nobel (recognised for helping put Australian scholarship on the map), did feel bizarrely comical. Of course, my inclusion in the power list, as editor of a widely-watched global ranking, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, was for a very serious reason.
“In the past decade rankings have taken hold, dramatically reshaping university strategies and objectives,” the newspaper said. “Mission documents are littered with aspirational references to be in the top 100 this or top 10 that...Arguments rage on Twitter, in blogs and the media as to the merits or otherwise of various methodologies.
“Like them or not... their impact on how universities go about their business is undeniable.”
This is, of course, true. Times Higher Education’s rankings are huge. Our website received close to two million visits in the 24 hours after publication of the World University Rankings in October 2011. Within the first month, that was heading towards 10 million.
The rankings are not just informing student choices, but influencing faculty career decisions, helping to forge new international research partnerships, shaping senior management strategies and even driving national government policy in some places. Ben Wildavsky said in his influential book, The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities Are Reshaping the World, that rankings are certainly not going away and they can be a positive force.
“Rankings are an unmistakable reflection of global academic competition...they seem destined to be a fixture on the global education scene for years to come,” he said. “As they are refined and improved they can and should play an important role in helping universities get better.”
The key words here, I believe, are “refined and improved”. With such heavy weight being placed on rankings, the responsibility of those who compile such tables is large. That is why in late 2009, after six years of publishing a popular global university ranking, Times Higher Education decided to go back to the drawing board and start again with a new mission and new data partner, Thomson Reuters. We built a new ranking system that better meets the needs and demands of a rapidly globalising higher education sector.
The new system, developed after almost 10 months of open consultation and with detailed expert input from a group of around 50 leading higher education experts, has bedded in very well. After some important methodological refinements between the first iteration in 2010 and last year’s table, we have had much praise and much support for our approach. Ferdinand Von Prondzynski, vice-chancellor of Robert Gordon University in Scotland, said that Times Higher Education’s rankings were now “increasingly seen as the gold standard”.
But as The Australian’s “most influential” list reminds us, we must never be complacent. We have a responsibility not only to maintain a ranking system that better bears the weight placed upon it, but also to be honest about the inherent limitations of all rankings. We must be honest about what data exists that can be fairly compared across national borders and we must be clear about what global rankings do not measure, and cannot measure. We must be clear about the compromises made and the proxies employed. We must be transparent. As part of this commitment to transparency – and, I have to admit, because it also provides a fascinating insight in its own right – I am delighted that for the second year running we will publish on 15th March a subsidiary to the annual World University Rankings, known as the World Reputation Rankings.
The World University Rankings are made up of 13 separate performance indicators, including the results of an annual Academic Reputation Survey – a simple opinion poll asking academics to name a small number of the ‘best’ universities in their field for both teaching and research. The results of this survey alone, which has attracted almost 31,000 responses from 149 countries in two annual rounds since 2011, are revealed in isolation in the World Reputation Rankings.
The reputation rankings are based on nothing more than the subjective judgment of scholars. But it is the considered, expert judgment of senior scholars – the people best placed to know the most about excellence inside our universities. While the new table will tackle reputation alone, there is no doubt that reputation really matters. In a competitive global market, a strong academic reputation gives tangible, real-world benefits – helping institutions attract and retain the best faculty, the best students, the best research and business partners, even the richest benefactors. And in a global information age, reputations built up over years – often centuries – are vulnerable as never before.
The World Reputation Rankings not only make Times Higher Education more accountable, they also provide a unique and valuable insight into the unstable status of the world’s top university brands. Publishing them shows that we take our ‘influence’, in Australia and elsewhere around the world, very seriously indeed.

Posté par pcassuto à 14:14 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote

2 mars 2012

World Bank calls for university autonomy, branch campuses, research

By Yojana Sharma. Universities must be given more autonomy by the state if they are to make a substantial contribution to innovation that would drive economic growth and ensure China can leap the difficult hurdle from being a middle-income country to a high-income one by 2030, according to a major report released by the World Bank this week.
Innovation would be key to future growth as the rapid economic growth of the last few decades begins to slow, said the report China 2030: Building a modern, harmonious and creative high-income society.
To this end China must improve the quality of research in its universities, give institutions more autonomy and link up researchers in national and international R&D networks.
It must also allow in more international branch campuses in collaboration with domestic universities in order to develop international standards of management of universities, the report said, suggesting that international institutions could help impart such standards.
The report, seen as a groundbreaking overview of the Chinese economy and a blueprint for its future direction, was drawn up by the World Bank in collaboration with the Development Research Centre.
The centre describes itself as a think-tank although it reports to China’s State Council, roughly equivalent to cabinet. This suggests that the report’s findings have been endorsed at the highest levels of government.
China 2030 includes a significant section on how China can maintain growth through technology and innovation – an area in which the higher education system will have a key role to play.
China is already turning to innovation as a means of shoring up rapid growth – which has averaged an astonishing 10% a year over the last 30 years – but the report points out that the bulk of R&D is conducted by the government and state enterprises and often seems “divorced from the real needs of the economy”.
It said China’s innovation objectives would depend on the quality of its skilled workers.
“Just as in the 1980s and 1990s when hundreds of millions of unskilled Chinese workers joined the global labour force as part of China's ‘opening up’ strategy, so too will tens of millions of tertiary-educated Chinese workers join the global workforce to significantly expand the global supply of skill-intensive products,” the report said.
It predicts that the number of college graduates could swell by 200 million over the next two decades, more than the entire labour force of the United States at around 155 million.
However, “the quality of tertiary education is a matter of concern, and employers are experiencing a serious shortage of skills,” it said. “To address this shortfall, China needs to further accelerate governance reform in universities, giving them greater autonomy while, at the same time, tightening ethical standards in research.”
It added: “The best universities must be allowed to mobilise funding and appoint faculty that ensure high quality, cross-disciplinary postgraduate and postdoctoral programmes. They also need to develop innovative approaches to imparting knowledge and analytical skills and set up well-staffed specialised research institutes.”
“In this regard, China should encourage leading foreign universities to set up campuses in China jointly with domestic universities and impart modern governance standards, teaching methods, and research management,” the report said.
It argued that China also needed to develop research networks both nationally and internationally and improve R&D quality, which is often low.
“China has seen a sharp rise in scientific patents and published papers, but few have commercial relevance and even fewer have translated into new products or exports,” with the exception of telecommunications and consumer electronics, the report said.
It added that China needed to “shift away from targeted attempts at developing specific new technologies” and instead develop the kind of institutions that produce innovation. “Research institutes may not be capturing opportunities to leverage their capabilities by networking within the country and connecting with global R&D networks.
“Links with global networks would also help address constraints in domestic research capacity and overcome perceptions in foreign countries about China’s research and development programme,” the report said.

Posté par pcassuto à 14:04 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote

2 mars 2012

OECD analysts see student aid as key to maintaining access as fees rise

http://www.universityworldnews.com/images/articles/20120224075836483_1.gif

By David Jobbins. OECD analysts have found the combination of tuition fees and financial support that seems to lead to the best outcomes for universities, students and society.
Following an in-depth analysis of data, they suggest that financing systems for higher education that charge a moderate level of tuition fees may stand a better chance of promoting access, equity, completion and positive outcomes for students if they are supported by means-tested grants and loans based on income-contingent repayments.
The second edition of the OECD’s Education Indicators in Focus (EIF) series examines countries’ relative success in controlling finances while continuing to promote access, equity and completion rates.
The report’s author, Jean-Daniel LaRock, says that many countries with strong university entry rates share one thing in common: robust student financial aid systems.
Four countries that have particularly well-developed systems – Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States – all have above-average university entry rates, despite having very high tuition fees.
And four low-tuition-fee countries that also support students with housing and other education-related expenses – Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – have high entry rates as well.
But the type of aid is also critical. OECD research suggests that combining means-tested grants with income-contingent repayment of loans not only promotes access and equity but also leads to better outcomes for students.
“Australia and New Zealand have used this approach to mitigate the impact of high tuition fees, encourage disadvantaged students to enter higher education, and reduce the risks of high student loan indebtedness. By contrast, countries with no tuition fees but less-developed student aid systems – such as Ireland and Mexico – have lower entry rates.”
While the OECD research suggests that a “moderate” level of tuition fees backed by giving students opportunities to benefit from comprehensive financial aid increases access, makes best use of limited public funds and acknowledge the significant private returns to students, defining what “moderate” means is not easy.
The reports makes no predictions regarding the impact of the imminent steep rise in tuition fees in the UK. But the underlying message of the analysis suggests that if the higher fees are mitigated by robust financial support systems, neither university budgets nor access should be drastically affected.
A further trend is to differentiate between home and international students, or between fields of study, to keep fees overall at reasonable levels while generating enough income for higher education systems.
Countries such as Denmark and Sweden, with low or non-existent fees for their own students, have moved to increase tuition fees for students from outside the European Union.
And at least 14 OECD member and partner countries differentiate tuition fees among fields of study to account for the higher cost of operating some academic programmes. Australia has even attempted to link the level of fees to labour-market opportunities by lowering tuition fees for fields with skills shortages, in order to attract more students.

Posté par pcassuto à 14:01 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote

2 mars 2012

To Judge International Branch Campuses, We Need to Know Their Goals

By Richard J. Edelstein and John Aubrey Douglass. The international branch campus phenomenon is relatively new, generating much news coverage and capturing the interest of many university presidents. But what is a branch campus? What kind of impact does it have on the home university in terms of its core functions of teaching and learning, research, and service to the larger society and the world? Does it change the campus culture and operations back home? In the case of the United States, thus far, the majority of branch-campus initiatives are conceived of at prestigious private universities—although with a number of important exceptions. Why is that? Just as importantly, how do universities evaluate and decide on a physical presence in some distant global marketplace?
Important questions. But the answers are elusive, hampered in part by the lack of research on the topic. Thus far, most studies, like that conducted by the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, are largely scans of activity that lack a more in-depth look at how and why institutions reach for an international presence. We postulate, however, that there are some noticeable trends.
- Almost all are small-scale, boutique experiments in a limited set of disciplines—more like outposts than a genuine university campus. They are often limited to one or two fields, often in professional areas with high student demand, like business, engineering, or information systems and computer science. Education City in Qatar, which is often cited in the press, graduated 243 students across all its institutions this past academic year. About 10 universities have branch campuses there.
- Branch campuses appear to be only loosely connected to the home campus, with limited impact on the core functions of teaching, learning, scholarship, and scientific research. Because of their small scale, they involve a limited set of students and faculty members on the main campus. In most cases, branch-campus students do not come to the "mother" institution for a period of study and home-campus students do not matriculate at the branch campus.
- Undergraduate programs entail greater risk and do not have much of a track record to judge potential success or failure. Liberal-arts or humanities and science curricula are usually undertaken by highly prestigious institutions, like Yale and University College London, or by lower-tier institutions with flexible admission standards, locally hired faculty members on limited contracts, and a clear objective to generate revenue. Some of the most noteworthy failures have been branch campuses that focused on undergraduate degrees, like the University of New South Wales in Singapore and Michigan State in Dubai.
- The single most limiting factor for foreign campuses is the scarcity of regular faculty members willing to spend extended periods abroad. Career-advancement issues related to research and publication constrain the ability of junior faculty to go abroad, and considerations such as travel, housing, and family relocation make it costly to maintain a mobile faculty. Employment of adjunct or local faculty risks being seen as damaging to academic quality.
- More often than not, the host country's government or local investors underwrite start-up costs, local infrastructure, and some operating costs. Not surprisingly, most branch campuses have emerged in regions and countries sufficiently wealthy to provide financial incentives that attract the interest of foreign universities. Middle Eastern and Asian nations are where most branch campuses are concentrated. Singapore, Malaysia, China, and South Korea are the most common sites in Asia. Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar have the majority of activity in the Middle East.
- Most branch campuses are exclusively teaching units. The focus seems to be on replicating some curriculum and programs of the home campus and not on extending other functions like research, alumni relations, or curriculum development. This may be a function of the loose connections between the home campus and branch campus, or because the geographic locations of these efforts may not be near key centers of research and business.
- It may be not only about the money, but there is some kind of correlation. The financial deals made between governments, private investors, and brand-name universities are rarely open to the public, but there are indicators that large sums are at play. Perhaps this is one reason that most of the branch campus action is being pursued by private universities in the United States that, unlike public universities, can keep their deals in a private black box.
We rarely know what the financial models are, and there are real questions regarding sustainability along with the complexities of maintaining faculty interest at the home campus. Will these branch campuses increasingly morph into more independent institutions with their own faculty, their own peculiar governance and management systems?
To be sure, there are stories of success.
Georgia Tech University has maintained a campus in France since 1991 and has established facilities in Singapore and Ireland. Its degree programs at these sites abroad are in high-demand fields, such as engineering, logistics, and management of technology and have relatively small cohorts of students. Professors from the home campus provide most of the teaching, and the curriculum replicates what is taught in Atlanta. Research activity is a key element on these campuses. In France, the university has developed collaborative research with French universities and the National Center for Scientific Research.
At the same time, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has avoided the branch-campus model while still having significant activities in Singapore. MIT has pursued numerous research projects and partnerships with local institutions to help them create degree programs and even a new university, experimenting with new curricula and pedagogies that might be integrated into home campus programs in Cambridge. This suggests that some brand-name campuses might want to avoid the financial and other risks of the branch campus—at least until more is understood about the long-term benefits and costs. But our main conclusion is that branch campuses create much noise and attention, but actually may be on average costly appendages.
Until branch campuses are linked to the core activities of the university, they are simply focused on exporting a narrow set of existing degree programs and projecting an image of global engagement for marketing purposes. Only when international programs and networks are integrated into the core functions of the home campus and part of the ethos or culture of faculty, students, alumni, and administrators will cross-border efforts represent a serious move in the direction of becoming a transnational or global university.
We need case studies to look at how major universities come to a decision to open a branch campus or other major international collaborative projects, what their near- and long-term financial models are, how they influence the academic culture at home and abroad, what makes them sustainable, and ultimately what determines success or failure. Yet the deals keep coming.
Richard J. Edelstein is a research associate at the University of California at Berkeley's Center for Studies in Higher Education. John Aubrey Douglass is a senior research fellow in public policy and higher education at the center.

Posté par pcassuto à 13:54 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote

2 mars 2012

Pôles de compétitivité - résultats du treizième appel à projets

http://www.aderly.com/pole-poles-de-competitivite/img/poles_competitivite.jpg

63 nouveaux projets ont été retenus au titre du 13e appel à projets pour l'attribution d'aides au financement de projets de R&D collaboratifs.
Les ministres en charge de la politique des pôles de compétitivité annoncent le financement de 63 nouveaux projets de R&D collaboratifs pour un montant d'aide de l'Etat de 58,4 millions d'euros. 52 pôles de compétitivité ont labellisé ces projets qui associent au moins deux entreprises et un laboratoire de recherche ou un organisme de formation.
Ils ont été sélectionnés, pour leur caractère innovant et l'activité économique qu'ils génèreront, parmi les 151 dossiers présentés au 13ème appel à projets du Fonds unique interministériel (FUI) dédié au financement de projets des pôles de compétitivité. Outre l'aide financière de l'Etat, ils bénéficieront de l'aide financière des collectivités territoriales et des fonds communautaires (FEDER) à hauteur de 41,2 millions d'euros.
Le nombre, la diversité et la qualité des projets retenus témoignent de la dynamique d'innovation et de partenariat impulsée par les pôles de compétitivité. Chercheurs et entrepreneurs se mobilisent, dans le cadre de coopérations public-privé, sur des projets qui n'auraient pas été lancés sans les pôles de compétitivité.
Ces projets concourront au renforcement de la compétitivité de l'économie française et à la création d'emplois, permettant aux entreprises impliquées de prendre des positions de leader sur les marchés concernés.
Depuis 2005, l'ensemble des appels à projets du FUI ont permis de soutenir 1 096 projets collaboratifs, entraînant un montant de dépenses de R&D de 5 milliards d'euros, un financement public de 2,1 milliards d'euros dont 1,3 milliard d'euros par l'État, et la mobilisation de 15 000 chercheurs.
Un 14e appel à projets sera lancé en mars 2012. Les projets seront sélectionnés dans le courant de l'été 2012.
Pour en savoir plus sur les pôles de compétitivité, consultez le site internet des pôles de compétitivité. Communiqué de presse et annexes Pôles de compétitivité. La liste des projets de R&D retenus dont le Pôle Mer PACA.

63 nye projekter blev udvalgt under det 13. indkaldelse af forslag til fordeling af tilskud til finansiering af projekter af F & U-projekter.
Ministrene med ansvar for de politiske grupper announce finansiering af 63 nye F & U-projekter for et beløb af statsstøtte på 58,4 millioner euro. 52 klynger har mærket disse projekter med deltagelse af mindst to virksomheder og et forskningslaboratorium eller en uddannelse organisation. Mere...

Posté par pcassuto à 13:28 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote

2 mars 2012

Accords compétitivité - emploi et formation des chômeurs

Pierre Ferracci, Président du Groupe Alpha, a donné deux interviews les 18 et 19 février 2012 pour la chronique "Interview économique" de France Inter sur le référundum pour la formation des chômeurs ainsi que pour le JT de TF1 sur les accords compétitivité - emploi.
L'interview éco - Fomation des chômeurs, faut-il un référendum?
Référendum sur la formation des chômeurs. Nicolas Sarkozy veut soumettre à référendum,une réforme sur l'indemnisation et la formation professionnelle des chômeurs. Syndicats et patronat n'en veulent pas mais sont prêts à faire évoluer le système, comment ? Pierre FERRACCI, Président du Groupe ALPHA, a présidé la commission Multipartite sur la Formation Professionnelle. Cliquez ici.

Accords compétitivité - emploi (déplacer le curseur sur 18min50, chapitre 13 du JT)
Résumé: Les accords de compétitivité-emploi qu'entend instaurer Nicolas Sarkozy, doivent être négociés entre syndicats et patronat dans les deux mois à venir. Les rares expériences de modulation négociée des salaires et du temps de travail n'ont pas vraiment convaincu les syndicats.
Source de la vidéo:Accords compétitivité-emploi : les négociations s'annoncent compliquées Vidéo jt_tf1_weekend sélectionnée dans Actualité. Cliquez ici.

Pierre Ferracci, predseda Alpha Group, dal dva rozhovory v dňoch 18. a 19. februára 2012 za stĺpci hospodárskej rozhovore "France Inter na référundum pre vzdelávanie nezamestnaných a na TF1 TV News na konkurenčné dohody zárobkovej činnosti. Viac...

Posté par pcassuto à 02:12 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote

2 mars 2012

Formation continue des médecins - le grand désert

Par Yves Rivoal. La loi Hôpital, patients, santé, territoires (HPST) ambitionne de réformer en profondeur le système de formation médicale continue des médecins. Bernard Ortolan, directeur scientifique de l’organisme de formation ACFM, et ancien président du Conseil nationalde la formation médicale continue des libéraux, revient sur les impacts de cette réforme et sur les obligations des médecins en matière de formation médicale.
Quelles sont aujourd’hui les obligations en matière de formation continue pour les médecins?
- La formation médicale continue est en théorie obligatoire depuis les ordonnances Juppé de 1996. Depuis 2005, les médecins ont aussi l’obligation de participer à des programmes d’évaluation de leurs pratiques professionnelles. Le problème, c’est que ces deux mesures n’ont jamais été appliquées, faute de publication des décrets. La loi HPST de 2009 essaie de corriger le tir en instaurant un nouveau concept qui fait la synthèse entre formation et évaluation professionnelle. Elle ne parle en effet plus de formation médicale continue, mais de Développement Médical Continu (DPC).
De quoi s’agit-il?
- Les médecins seront invités à réfléchir sur leurs pratiques et à analyser les résultats de ces observations, pour ensuite renforcer leurs connaissances et leurs compétences via la formation, et s’assurer ensuite que tout ceci améliore la qualité et la sécurité de leurs pratiques. Le décret d’application de la loi HPST a été publié fin 2011. On peut donc penser que le dispositif s’installera tranquillement en 2012, et qu’il ne sera véritablement opérationnel pour l’ensemble des professionnels de santé qu’à partir de 2013.
En attendant, comment se forment aujourd’hui les médecins?
- Les médecins continuent de respecter leur obligation déontologique en se formant comme bon leur semble, en fonction de leur exercice et de leurs besoins. Ils peuvent pour cela s’adresser à près de 500 organismes de formation agréés par les Conseils Nationaux de la Formation Médicale Continue, la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), le Fond d’Assurance Formation de la Profession Médicale (FAF PM) ou l’Organisme Gestionnaire Conventionnel (OGC).
Ces opérateurs ont reçu un label de qualité pédagogique et scientifique qui leur permet de mettre en place des programmes validant de formation et d’évaluation des pratiques professionnelles qui durent en général un ou deux jours. Pour être complet, il faut ajouter que les spécialistes s’inscrivent toujours dans les grands congrès nationaux et internationaux qui leur sont recommandés par les sociétés savantes, ces manifestations restant incontournables pour l’actualisation deleurs connaissances.
Comment est financé ce dispositif de formation?
- Les organismes agréés sont désormais financés exclusivement par des fonds publics, via des appels d’offres lancés par les caisses d’assurance-maladie ou l’État. Depuis le scandale du Médiator, ils ne peuvent en effet plus bénéficier de financements de la part de l’industrie médicale. Ce qui pose d’ailleurs problème, puisque les 75 M€ mis à disposition des opérateurs de formation médicale continue par les pouvoirs publics ne couvrent pas l’ensemble des besoins de formation des professionnels de santé. Quant aux grands congrès nationaux et internationaux, ils sont, eux, toujours financés en grande partie par l’industrie pharmaceutique, via les stands et les symposia, mais on peut considérer que les travaux d’ateliers demeurent indépendants.
Quelles sont aujourd’hui les grandes tendances en matière de formation?
- Comme 90% des programmes de formation médicale continue sont désormais financés par l’assurance-maladie, cette dernière les oriente en direction des grandes pathologies chroniques qui coûtent le plus cher: le diabète, les pathologies respiratoires, l’hypertension, les maladies cardio-vasculaires, certaines pathologies dégénératives comme Alzheimer, la prévention des risques de cancer…
Les médecins peuvent-ils se former sur des thématiques qui dépassent le cadre médical comme le développement personnel ou la communication?
- On peut penser qu’avec l’instauration du DPC, des items comme la gestion du cabinet, l’hygiène au cabinet, l’accueil des patients, ou la politique et l’économie de santé seront considérés comme un instrument de développement. En attendant, ces thématiques sont très peu abordées en formation médicale continue, tout comme en formation médicale initiale. Nous voyons aujourd’hui arriver sur le marché des jeunes médecins qui n’ont aucune idée de ce qu’est l’exercice libéral, et qui du coup, ne s’installent pas. On touche là du doigt l’un des paramètres de la désertification médicale dont on parle tant.
Voir aussi Le Développement professionnel continu (DPC), Développement Professionnel Continu (DPC): publication des décrets d’application, Parution au Journal Officiel des décrets relatifs au DPC des professionnels de santé, Préparer la mise en oeuvre du DPC.

By Yves Rivoal. Law Hospital, patients, health territories (HPST) aims to reform the system of continuing medical education for physicians. Bernard Ortolan, Scientific Director of the ACFM training organization, and former Chairman continuing medical education nationalde Liberals, discusses the impact of this reform and the obligations of physicians in medical education. See also The Continuing Professional Development (CPD), Continuing Professional Development (CPD): publication of the decrees, Published in the Official Gazette of decrees relating to CPD for health professionals, Prepare the implementation of CPD. More...

Posté par pcassuto à 01:43 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote

1 mars 2012

Enseignement supérieur – Un secteur stratégique en voie de mutation

Enseignement supérieur – Un secteur stratégique en voie de mutation. FitchRatings: Communiqués de presse et Rapport.
Communiqués de presse
Fitch Ratings-Paris/Londres - 28 février 2012: Dans un rapport publié aujourd’hui, Fitch indique que l’enseignement supérieur est un secteur stratégique en voie de mutation. Caractérisé par la coexistence de deux modèles, ce secteur devrait bénéficier des réformes en cours visant à accélérer le rapprochement des universités (publiques) et des grandes écoles (publiques ou privées).
La méthodologie de Fitch prend en compte à la fois le statut juridique et le mode de financement. Pour les établissements publics (EP), Fitch applique sa méthodologie de notation des entités du secteur public (approche « top-down »). De même, selon leurs sources de financement, Fitch applique soit la méthodologie « Tax-supported rating criteria », soit « Revenue-supported rating criteria ».
Fitch estime que l’Etat joue un rôle majeur dans le système d’enseignement supérieur qui relève, en effet, de sa compétence. Le budget de l’enseignement supérieur est voté par le Parlement et consolidé avec celui de la recherche au sein de la mission interministérielle « Recherche et enseignement supérieur » (MIRES). En 2011, le budget total de cette mission représentait 8,8% du budget de l’Etat.
Le rapport examine également les effets de la loi relative aux libertés et responsabilités des universités (LRU) de 2007 qui a permis à une grande majorité des universités de devenir autonomes. Fitch considère qu’au-delà de la lisibilité et de la simplification que ces réformes devraient apporter, celles-ci devraient également renforcer l’attractivité des établissements et leur reconnaissance internationale.
Les grandes écoles sont financées principalement par les frais de scolarité (les transferts de l’Etat ne représentaient que 12,2 % des recettes totales en 2009). La sélectivité des étudiants repose sur le concours d’entrée. A l’opposé, le financement du modèle universitaire est principalement d’origine étatique (82,1 % en 2009) même si les financements privés devraient évoluer à moyen terme, notamment par l’intermédiaire des fondations universitaires.
Fitch souligne que, même si une grande majorité des établissements est en bonne santé financière, à fin 2011 sept établissements (parmi lesquels quatre universités et deux grandes écoles) étaient placés sous la surveillance financière de leur recteur, suite à deux années consécutives de déficit. A moyen terme, Fitch estime que dans un contexte de crise financière et de besoin de financement en hausse, les frais de scolarité devraient augmenter pour assurer l’équilibre financier des établissements.
Le rapport complet intitulé: “Enseignement supérieur – Un secteur stratégique en voie de mutation” est disponible gratuitement sur le site francophone de l’agence www.fitchratings.fr.
Contacts: Arnaud Dura, Directeur associé, Tél: +33 1 44 29 91 79. Fitch France S.A.S., 60, rue de Monceau, 75008 Paris. Christophe Parisot, Directeur senior, Tél: +33 1 44 29 91 34.
FitchRatings: Communiqués de presse et Rapport.

Videregående uddannelse - en strategisk sektor i processen af mutation. Fitch: Nyheder og Rapport.
Pressemeddelelser
Fitch Ratings-Paris/Londres - 28. februar 2012: I en rapport offentliggjort i dag, siger Fitch, at højere uddannelse er en strategisk sektor i processen af mutation. Kendetegnet ved sameksistensen af to modeller, bør industrien drage fordel af de igangværende reformer for at fremskynde tilnærmelse af universiteterne (offentlig) og skoler (offentlig eller privat). Mere...

Posté par pcassuto à 09:52 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote

1 mars 2012

Lignes directrices pour des prestations de qualité dans l'enseignement supérieur transfrontalier

Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education - Where Do We Strand? Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin, OECD, France, Sebastian Pfotenhauer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States. The Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education were developed and adopted to support and encourage international cooperation and enhance the understanding of the importance of quality provision in cross-border higher education. The purposes of the Guidelines are to protect students and other stakeholders from low-quality provision and disreputable providers (that is, degree and accreditation mills) as well as to encourage the development of quality cross-border higher education that meets human, social, economic and cultural needs. Based on a survey about the main recommendations of the Guidelines, this report monitors the extent to which OECD countries and a few non-member partners complied with its recommendations in 2011. Twenty-three responses were obtained from 22 Members.
SUMMARY
The Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education were developed and adopted to support and encourage international cooperation and enhance the understanding of the importance of quality provision in cross-border higher education. The purposes of the Guidelines are to protect students and other stakeholders from low-quality provision and disreputable providers (that is, degree and accreditation mills) as well as to encourage the development of quality cross-border higher education that meets human, social, economic and cultural needs. The Guidelines are not legally binding and member countries are expected to implement them as appropriate in their national context.
Based on a survey about the main recommendations of the Guidelines, this report monitors the extent to which OECD countries and a few non-member countries comply with its recommendations. The Survey was sent out in June 2010 to all OECD countries. The Secretariat has also collaborated with the UNESCO Secretariat to have the questionnaire sent to all UNESCO non-OECD country delegations. Twenty-three responses were obtained from 22 Members: Australia, Austria, Belgium (Flemish and French communities), Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States; and 9 non-Members: Bulgaria, Colombia, Fiji, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Oman, Rwanda. Government representatives were asked to co-ordinate with the other stakeholders covered to answer the survey.
The main conclusion of the survey is that (responding) countries report a high level of compliance with the Guidelines recommendations. On average, responding OECD countries conform to 72% of the main recommendations made to governments, tertiary education institutions, and quality assurance and accreditation agencies. The level of compliance decreases to 67% when recommendations to student bodies are included, but the level of missing information, and thus uncertainty about actual compliance, increases significantly.
Tertiary education institutions are the group of stakeholders that follow the most the recommendations of the Guidelines, with an average compliance index of 0.80 (80%). Governments and quality assurance and accreditation bodies comply on average with 76% and 61% of the guidelines, respectively. Student bodies only conform to 51% of the recommendations – with the caveat that information about their activities was generally scant in the survey answers.
The objectives or desirable practices emphasised by the Guidelines are: 1) the inclusion of crossborder higher education in countries’ regulatory framework, 2) the comprehensive coverage of all forms of cross-border higher education, 3) student and customer protection, 4) transparency in procedures (for providers), 5) information access and dissemination (for potential international students), 6) collaboration.
Four of these objectives are largely met on average: countries have regulatory frameworks or arrangements in place, cover different forms of cross-border higher education comprehensively, are transparent in their procedures, and are engaged in national and international collaboration. The current main weaknesses in compliance lie in easy access to information and the level of student and customer protection.
While there is probably no need for a revision of the Guidelines, countries should continue to disseminate and implement their recommendations. The main areas of improvement lie in measures to improve student and customer protection as well as the transparency in procedures of assessment, registration, and licensing for providers. Further progress in the ease of access of information for students would also be welcome. Paradoxically, quality assurance and accreditation bodies comply less with the Guidelines than governments and tertiary education institutions.
Conclusion: no need for revision, but need for further compliance
The internationalisation of higher education and growth of cross-border higher education, in its different forms, has largely continued since the publication of the Guidelines. There are good reasons to believe that this will continue over the next decades (OECD, 2009). People mobility will likely continue to represent the bulk of cross-border higher education, followed by programme mobility, and institution mobility. This third form of cross-border higher education has increased less than first anticipated, probably because of the associated business risks.
Four new trends are noteworthy in this area. First, foreign campuses are increasingly part of regional clusters, as part of a regional innovation or knowledge economy development strategy. An example of this model is the Knowledge Village (Dubai), the Education City (Qatar) as well as other educational areas currently being developed such as the Kuala Lumpur Education City supported by the Malaysian government (and due to open in 2011). Second, the financing models of campuses abroad have changed. While most of the initial foreign campuses self-financed their move abroad, they are currently increasingly funded by local partners (government or industrial companies) who provide them with a campus or even subsidise them. Third, research objectives become increasingly an objective of cross-border higher education, as part of capacity development strategies. Fourth, cross-border higher education activities between non-OECD countries are growing, especially as emerging countries develop proactive strategies to “export” their education services (that is, attract international students and send their educational programmes and institutions abroad).
None of these new developments makes the challenges addressed by the Guidelines less relevant.
In December 2008, a workshop organised by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) examined whether the Guidelines needed some rewording or revision (ENQA, 2010). The main conclusion was that the recommendations of the Guidelines need no revision yet and are largely in line with most codes of good practice used by networks and associations of quality assurance agencies in Latin America, in the Asia-Pacific region, in North America, and in Europe including the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area adopted by the Ministers of the Bologna Process in Bergen in May 2005. It was also argued that revising the Guidelines too soon would hinder rather than further their implementation and impact. While they are not always explicitly mentioned in countries, they are largely reflected in the main documents that are used to set standards and guidelines in the different regions of the world, for example in international or regional associations of quality assurance agencies.
The main recommendation of the workshop participants was to make it explicit in other existing standards and guidelines for quality assurance that cross-border higher education should be subject to the same guidelines as are applied to any other educational programme.
In Europe, this materialised in a statement in the Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education (2009) saying: “transnational education should be governed by the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance as applicable within the European Higher Education Area and be in line with the UNESCO/OECD Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education.”
While there is probably no need for a revision of the Guidelines, countries should continue to disseminate and implement their recommendations. The main areas of improvement lie in measures to improve student and customer protection as well as the transparency in procedures of assessment, registration, and licensing for providers. Further progress in the ease of access of information for students would also be welcome. Paradoxically, quality assurance and accreditation bodies comply less with the Guidelines than governments and tertiary education institutions.
The report did not manage to get a clear picture of compliance in non-OECD countries, as the number of non-OECD respondents was too small and not really representative of any group of countries.
After discussion of these conclusions by the OECD Education Policy Committee, the OECD Council has recommended to continue current efforts:
• to promote quality provision in cross-border higher education, notably a) by improving measures for student and customer protection, b) by enhancing their transparency in procedures of assessment, registration, and licensing for providers, and c) to provide easy access of information for students;
• to encourage quality assurance and accreditation bodies to comply with the Guidelines and be more explicit about their coverage of cross-border higher education;
• to raise awareness of the Guidelines nationally and internationally.
Download Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education. See also Structure et tendances du paysage universitaire dans les pays de l’OCDE. Voir aussi Structure et tendances du paysage universitaire dans les pays de l’OCDE.
Lignes directrices pour des prestations de qualité dans l'enseignement supérieur transfrontalier - État des lieux. Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin, OECD, France, Sebastian Pfotenhauer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States. Les Lignes directrices pour des prestations de qualité dans l’enseignement supérieur transfrontalier ont été élaborées et adoptées pour promouvoir et encourager la coopération internationale et améliorer la compréhension de l’importance des enjeux lies à la qualité de l’enseignement supérieur transfrontalier. L’objectif des Lignes directrices est de protéger les étudiants et les autres parties prenantes des programmes d’enseignement de médiocre qualité et des prestataires peu scrupuleux (usines à diplômes et à accréditation) et de favoriser le développement d’un enseignement supérieur transfrontalier de qualité qui réponde aux besoins de développement humain, social, économique et culturel. S’appuyant sur une enquête auprès des pays, ce rapport examine dans quelle mesure les pays de l’OCDE et quelques pays non-membres se conformaient aux recommandations des Lignes directrices en 2011. Vingt-trois réponses ont été obtenues de 22 Membres. Télécharger Lignes directrices pour des prestations de qualité dans l'enseignement supérieur transfrontalier. Voir aussi Structure et tendances du paysage universitaire dans les pays de l’OCDE. Voir aussi Structure et tendances du paysage universitaire dans les pays de l’OCDE.

Posté par pcassuto à 09:00 - Commentaires […] - Permalien [#]

Partager cet article

Vous aimez ?

0 vote