Madrid, 26/3/2004

Italian Report WORK IN PROGRESS ACTIVITIES

Second Transnational Meeting Madrid, 26th march 2004

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Survey

DETC - Distance Education and Training Council (US)

Accreditation process for Educational Institutes

Intra-governmental Commission – Directive for e-learning quality

Proposal of guidelines and Vademecum for e-learning quality projects in PA

ASFOR – Association for business management training

Proposal of an accreditation process for E-learning Masters

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Further Activities

Focus on the ASFOR accrediting process

Official national scenario

Comparison of APs (synoptic table)

First attempt to draft a model of Accrediting Systems

Some specific criteria

SIG-DLAE Accrediting System

Madrid, 26/3/2004

ASFOR Association for Business Management Training

• Experience of Italian accrediting process

• Specifically for on line/blended master programmes

• on Management and Business Administration

• On going project , still in phase of experimentation and testing

• Identification of specific Quality Criteria: traditional vs on line

• European trends and contributions: EQUIS project - EFMD

Madrid, 26/3/2004

ASFOR Experimentation

Application Content:

Specialist Masters for Executives

Executive MBA (Master in Business Administration)

Finality of the experimental phase:

-    a) to evaluate the validity and completeness of quality criteria

-    b) to test monitoring tools and indicators

Polytechnic of Milan Master MAF…

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Focus points of criteria

I. Typology of master

II. Admission procedures

III. Didactic methodologies

IV. Duration and articulation

V. Project Team and Faculty

VI. Tutorship and assistance

VII. Evaluation process

VIII. Technical and support equipment, standards

IX. Customer satisfaction

Madrid, 26/3/2004

II. Admission Criteria

• Specialist Masters for Executives Graduated people with at least 3 years experience

• Executive MBA At least 70% of graduated people with 5 years experience

III. Didactic Methodology Blended Learning and mix of activities

proportion among the various methods

mix of Active Learning methodology is strongly suggested :

Virtual Role playing scenario

Case Studies

Self -evaluation

Project works

Madrid, 26/3/2004

IV. Duration and articulation

 

Minimum duration (A)

Project work

Didactic hours

(B= C+ D)

Hours of frontal lessons or virtual class synchronous ( C)

Hours of asynchronous activity of e-learning (no self learning) (D)

Executive Master on Line in Business Administration

500 hours Yes 500 *** 200 (Max: 50% of virtual classroom)

300

Master Specialistic

1200 hours

Yes 600 *** 150-300 (Max: 50% of virtual classroom)

300-450

*** Project works, stages and self-learning are not included in didactic hours.

Madrid, 26/3/2004

V. Project Team and Faculty

E-learning faculty has new roles and should be a staff composed by:

Tutors Didactic coordinatorTechnology Help Desk assistant LMS/CLMS administratorTeachers Content experts

Criteria on experience and turnover

VI. Evaluation process

explicit, coherent with objectives of courses

different steps during the learning process

student capabilities and knowledge

LMS tracking

Monitoring of different learning activities (quality assessments/scores..)

Final examination on presence

Madrid, 26/3/2004

need of declare the involvement of tutors (hours; ratio tutor on number of students,etc.)

Service Level Assistance :

8 working hours: time to replay to student requests/helps 4 working hours: time to assure technological assistance and Help Desk16 working hours for teacher/expert consulting

VII. Tutorship and assistance

VIII. Technical and support equipment and standards

LMS/CLMS: AICC, IMS and/or SCORM compliant

Support equipment for collaborative learning

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Customer satisfaction must be pursued by:

mapping different methodologies

promoting blended learning models

measuring Learning Objects

guaranteeing tutorship by a well defined scheduling assistance services.

Customer satisfaction must be evaluated by questionnaires.

Key note: student drop out has never to be more than 20% of the enrolled people.

IX. Customer Satisfaction

Madrid, 26/3/2004

180 credits First Level (Bachelor)

120 credits Second Level (Master)

………3 years PhD

Following 1st level

Master- not master

Following 2nd level

The University Credit System

1 credit = 25 hours (conventional)

All the University are aligned with the credit system

Madrid, 26/3/2004

a) The Education & ICT Ministries

Moratti – Stanca Law

The Official Scenario

b) The Italian Confederation of Deans (CRUI)

CampusOne project

c) Others

sie-l Italian Society of e-learning

Madrid, 26/3/2004

ANEE Survey 2002/2003

Not so big

6 universities on 77 are really developing e-L

More universities produce “web enhanced courses”

The Market of University in e-learning

Madrid, 26/3/2004

7 persons commission since summer 2003

Only 1 new university at the moment

Criteria:

• Technological (platform, LO,…)

• A min. threshold for teachers/tutors

• Didactical (evaluation – exams, services, customer satisfaction,..)

Polytechnic is accredited because it was the first in Italy (before the law)

Moratti – Stanca Law

Madrid, 26/3/2004

CdL – IoL (On line Degree in Computer Science) was accredited in December 2003

4 steps (+ step zero)

0. Polytechnic decides courses to be available

1. CoampusOne analyses document and web site

2. The managing structure evaluates itself

3. On-sit Visit (not by surprise): 2 days-long meeting; face-to-face interviews with students/teachers/tutors/managers/employees

4. Recommendations

5. (Future checks)

CRUI project - CampusOne

Madrid, 26/3/2004

The 8 best practices in Virtual university

elected by EU through PSRamboll survey

A general Accreditation

The e-L model of Polytechnic of Milan (many projects: IoL; Matser NetBA; MathOnLine)

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Founder Associates: Polytechnic of Milan (A.Colorni)University of Florence (A. Calvani)University of Milano-Bicocca (G. Martinotti)ITD-CNR of Genova (G. Olimpo)

200 Members

Web site: www.sie-l.it

SIe-L Società Italiana di e-learning

No profit association

It aims at favouring the development of e-learning in Italy, above all, at University, post-university and high-school level

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Comparison of APs: DETC key factors

Preparat. ConclusionExaminationApplication Renewal

DETC Preliminary Examination

SER Submit

SER evaluation

Examiner’s Report

Council Examination

• More articulated process of analysis

• Many steps for comments and feedbacks (learning process)• Annual Handbook available on line• Possibility to appeal to the decision before the final notification

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Comparison of APs: ASFOR key factors

Preparat. ConclusionExaminationApplication Renewal

• Flexible to specific situation

• Encouraging system to accreditation

ASFOR First Level

Contitioned Accreditation

Second Level

Full Accreditation

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Matrix of Accreditation Systems Level

Educational path/product

Approach

Institution

Single product

ProductProcessPresence

Blended

e-L

ODLPA

ASFOR

DETC

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Process and product approach

Process Product

• Quality in activities and procedures (Life Cycle: Concept, Design,

Implementation, Release)

• Quality in components and functions (materials, services, etc.)

• Dynamic and systemic vision of the product: Integration with the organisational context

• Static vision of the product: risk of not considering the context where the product works

•Detailed on specifities as well as on specific key factors in educational products

Integrated approach

(i.e. EQO)

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Common Criteria

Integration of various standards (EQO, ODL QC, ….)

I. Pre-analysis of student requirementsII. Planning HR involved in learning activitiesIII. Attention to learner motivationIV. Attention to content model of learning material and

assessmentV. Accurancy of Students SupportVI. Pubblicity and marketing

Main focus: PEDAGOGICAL CRITERIA

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Accessibility (1/3)

ACCESSIBILITY: “Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with disability thanks to specific configurations or/and supporting technologies”

Disability: not only the blinds, but also who sees few, the elderly people, etc.

USABILITY: “Effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which users can reach specific targets in specific contexts”

[ISO 9241, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual displays]

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Accessibility (2/3)

LAW 9th January 2004, n.4: “Arrangements for favouring the access of disabled people to information tools” (GU n.13, 17th January 2004)

Addressed to:

oPublic Administration (Governamental offices, Healthcare Institute, schools and University, ..)

o Educational Institution, providing services to PA

Objective: consistency of web sites, didactical tools and educational materials with the new requirements.

References: W3C http://www.w3c.it/wai/

European arrangement http://www.euroaccessibility.org/

Madrid, 26/3/2004

Accessibility (3/3)

By 9th april 2004:

criteria and general operative and organisational principles for accessibility

Modalities to apply for the evaluation; costs; trademark or logo

Adjustment of institution within 12 months since May 2005

By 9th may 2004:

Guidelines: technical requirements and levels of accessibility

Technical methodologies for evaluating the accessibility

Madrid, 26/3/2004

SIG-DLAE Accrediting System e-learning and blended: OK

National vs European Accrediting System (AS)

Need of not overlapping existing national systems

European AS for accrediting the quality of National systems regarding to international criteria accepted by EU (MetaSystem of Accreditation)

European AS for specific content application not yet considered by national systems

…?

Madrid, 26/3/2004

SIG-DLAE Accrediting System European Master of Science vs whole Higher Education paths

Definition of Master of Science

First Level Degree

(Bachelor)3 Years

First Level Masters/Courses

Second Level Degree

(Master)2 Years

Second Level Masters/Courses

Madrid, 26/3/2004

SIG-DLAE Accrediting System Accrediting Institutions vs Programs

Trends for PA: Accreditation of Institutions

ASFOR system: Accreditation of Programs

It also depends on:

What integration with existing national systems

What level of accreditation (Meta AS,…)

Complexity of the process to be sustained