promuovere l’apprendimento incentrato sullo studente nelle ... · erasmus+ (ka 3) -...

SEMINARIO NAZIONALE

Promuovere l’apprendimento incentrato sullo studente nelle istituzioni di istruzione superiore

Università di Pisa, 10-11 dicembre 2015

Aula Magna Fratelli Pontecorvo - Via Buonarroti, 2 – Pisa

Erasmus+ (KA 3) - “Consolidating Higher Education Experience of Reform: norms, networks and good practice in Italy (CHEER)”


TUNING MOTTO: PREPARING OUR GRADUATES BEST FOR THEIR ROLE IN SOCIETY

The contribution of the Tuning Process around the world: placing the student at the centre

Robert Wagenaar, Esperto di Bologna (NL),

Co-coordinatore Interntational Tuning Academy, Università di Groningen


Content

1. Social-Economic Reality: Financial and Economic crisis, 2008 –

present

2. Modernisation agenda in Higher Education

3. TUNING: A global initiative

4. Present State of Affairs: Wider acceptance of competence

approach

5. Integration of domain / subject specific and generic competences

6. Need for reliable instruments

7. Contribution of Tuning

8. Tuning Assessment Sector / Subject Area Based Frameworks


1. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC REALITY: Financial / Economic Crisis 2008 – present

High level of unemployment (e.g. 26 million in Europe)

Vacancies / job openings: experience required

Tenures / Jobs for life have become exceptional

Life Long Learning: Mismatch capacities and needs: role of companies / organizations

Tendency to prolong studies: knowledge related, less skills and wider competences but in

contrast also more intense studying and avoiding part time work

Social cohesion of societies challenged

Individual tolerance and self-confidence under pressure

Are there other relevant tendencies not mentioned?

Effects on role of Higher Education?


2. Modernization agenda in Higher EducationDRIVERS:

Paradigm shift: from expert-driven teaching and learning to student-centered learning

(input to output)

Basing curricula on programme and module/unit learning outcomes

Preparing graduates for employability and citizenship (developing competency)

Internationalization of Higher Education and the Labor market

Autonomy – Accountability – Quality Assurance – Accreditation of Higher Education

Institutions and their programmes

European / National / Sectoral Qualifications Frameworks

Need felt to compare achievements of learning in (inte)rnational perspective

Tuning Educational Structures in Europe and beyond initiatives: Methodology for

developing outcome based degree programmes and transnational Frameworks of

Reference Points at Subject area and Sectoral level since 2000


3.TUNING: A global initiative Is a university / academics driven process established in 2000 involving more than 100

countries / 1000nds of institutions and 10.000nds of academics

Offers a universal approach to reform higher education at the level of higher educational

institutions and subject areas at national, transnational and global level

Consists of a methodology to (re-) design, develop, implement and evaluate study

programmes for each of the three cycles

Serves as platform for developing reference points at subject area and sector level,

based on a wide stakeholder consultation, including employers, graduates, students and

academic staff. The reference points – fully respecting diversity and autonomy - are relevant

for making programs of studies comparable, compatible and transparent

Contributes to the development and enhancement of high-quality competitive study

programmes by focussing on fitness of purpose (to meet expectations) and fitness for

purpose (to meet aims): Placing students in the centre

Transcends "delivery" and encompasses all learners


4. Present State of Affairs: Wider acceptance of competence approach

Required modernization process develops very slowly

Most degree programmes still not student-centred but expert/teacher driven

Discourse of the relevance of generic competences has spread

More attention towards number of basic competences: analyzing and

synthesizing, writing and oral skills

Use of instrument of (work) placements is growing

Development of competences such as entrepreneurial skills, creativity, teamwork,

project work, leadership, intercultural competences, conflict management obtain

still no or very limited attention

Main challenge: How to train and assess many of these competences when

expertise and experience is missing


5. Integration of domain / subject specific and generic competences

Well understood by now that graduates need generic competences and these need

to be trained; however, academic staff is missing the expertise; staff development not

being a priority

Only sensible way forward is to relate generic competence development to a domain

of knowledge: forces academic staff to re-think their modes of teaching, learning and

assessment

Is there an alternative approach? Suggestions?

Bringing in external experts? Employers? Graduates?

Implications for informal and non-formal contexts


WHY choose for an integrated approach of generic and subject

specific competences ?

The Tuning experience shows:

Generic competences are developed as part of the body of knowledge and skills of

a subject area (integrated approach)

Only a limited number of generic competences can be developed / trained, which

requires choices

The core set of generic competences partly differs per sector / subject area

Application of generic competences differs between sectors / subject areas: e.g.

analyzing and synthesizing, teamwork, communication skills, entrepreneurship, etc.


6. Obvious need for reliable instruments for:

Reforming HE degree programmes

Recognition of Studies in national and international perspective

(Meta-Profiles for disciplines, Sector and Meta Qualifications

Frameworks)

Measuring Learning Time and Level (Credits and Learning Outcomes)

Comparing Achievement of Learning (Assessment Frameworks)

Quality Enhancement and Assurance


7. Contribution of Tuning

A. Global facilitator National and International cooperation of Higher Education

Institutions and their academics

B. Application of bottom-up approach to reform

Development and use of methodology for reforming and enhancing degree

programmes

C. International reference frameworks of levels and approaches:

Development and use of international conceptual frameworks / meta-profiles

at disciplinary and sector level (reference points / standards)

NEXT Step: Development of Assessment Frameworks to compare and to

measure learning achievements (as an instrument for quality enhancement)


7-A. Contribution of Tuning

Europe

Latin-America

Russia

Japan

Africa

Central Asian Republics

United States

Middle East and North Africa

Feasibility studies: Australia, Canada, China, Thailand, India

Tuning Europe

Tuning Russia

Tuning

América Latina

Tuning Africa

TuCAHEA:Towards a Central Asian Higher Education Area

CALOHEE


7-B. Tuning Golden standard for enhancing / designing degree programmes: 10 steps approach + Guide to Formulating Degree Profiles

1. Determine need and potential

2. Define the profile and the key competences

3. Formulate the Programme Learning Outcomes

4. Decide whether to ‘modularise’ or not

5. Identify competences and formulate learning outcomes for each

module

6. Determine the approaches to teaching, learning and assessment

7. Check whether the key generic and subject specific competences

are covered

8. Describe the programme and the course units

9. Check balance and feasibility

10. Implement, monitor and improve


Role of frameworks:Offer agreed indicators of: Level Content Direction

EQF

Descriptors

TUNING

Sectoral Reference Points

TUNING Subject Specific Frameworks:

Reference Points

Tuning Sector / Subject Area Based Assessment Frameworks

C. International reference

frameworks of levels and approaches

Profiles of individual degree programmes


Humanities and the Arts

Social Sciences

Natural Sciences

Health Care

Engineering

Subject areas / disciplines: mono-, multi-, interdisciplinary

Frameworks in TUNING

Subject Area Meta-Profiles publications …

December 15, 2015 Slide 18

8. Tuning Sector / Subject Area Assessment frameworks

CALOHEE: Measuring and Comparing Achievements of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education in EUROPE

Intended Learning Outcomes – Implemented Learning Outcomes – Achieved LO

Supported by EU

Consortium Partners: 10 universities European Associations and

Organisations: ESU, ECA, EURASHE, ENAEE (in advisory

board also: EUA and ENQA)

European University networks: Coimbra, Santander, UNICA, Utrecht, Compostela

Open Call of Interest will is launched in December 2015 to identify another 60 universities to involve ! Deadline: 15 January 2015

Press Release:

Do students enrolled in higher education around Europe develop the competences they need? Are study programmes delivering their promises? Can we learn to compare student's achievements in different countries in a meaningful way?

A new EU funded project, called CALOHEE, will help to find the answers to these questions

by developing the infrastructure that will eventually make it possible to test bachelor and master

students’ performance Europe-wide across a range of fields in a way that satisfies the needs of

the various stakeholders in the European higher education community.

The project will start this autumn and first results are expected in spring 2017. The project will

initially cover five subject areas, representing five significant academic domains: Engineering

(Civil Engineering), Health Care (Nursing), Humanities (History), Natural Sciences (Physics)

and Social Sciences (Education). After this initial stage, the outcomes can be used to examine

many other degree programmes as well.


Three phases:First phase – Update the frameworks of reference points

Development of 5 refined conceptual frameworks of reference points for first (bachelor) and second

cycle (master) at sectoral and subject area / disciplinary level (based on Tuning model): cycle

descriptors / typical occupations / overview of TLA-approaches

Second phase - Produce the assessment frameworks

Development of assessment framework per domain/subject area consisting of:

Clear set of assessment criteria based on the multi-dimensional approach doing justice to

different types of institutions and profiles;

Detailed test blue print for each of the assessments and

Detailed work plan for the creation and implementation of the assessments. Education, History,

Nursing and Physics for the final stage of the first cycle (bachelor); Engineering either end first

cycle or end second cycle (master).

Preparation of White paper which will lay out the costs/benefits for various assessment designs for

making evidence based decisions regarding next steps. Involvement of Educational Testing Service

(ETS)

Third phase – Design the multi-dimensional tests + Testing (next phase project)

Development of multi-dimensional tests

Testing of students of 5 subject areas in 5 X 75 higher education institutions


Building on work established and lessons learned:

Regional approach: initial focus on Europe / EHEA only

Trans(national) and Sectoral Qualifications frameworks /TUNING model for Conceptual

frameworks /Available experience regarding comparative (trans)national assessments

Integrated approach of subject specific and generic competence development (general

competences tested in relation to disciplinary ones)

Multi-dimensional approach to do justice to different missions and profiles of Higher

Education institutions and degree programs (research based / applied based) based on

shared body of knowledge and skills

Use of four dimensions / parameters – all related to subject area: 1) theoretical

knowledge and skills; 2) application of knowledge and skills; 3) preparation for

employability and 4) active citizenship

Five subject areas / disciplines representing the five main academic sectors

The assessments / tests will take place at the final stage of the first cycle / bachelor

MULTI-DIMENSIAL APPROACH

Base assessment on four parameters / categories:

Common body of knowledge, skills and wider

competences

Employability

Assessment framework

Active

Citizenship

Theory and

research skillsApplication

knowledge and

skills Example of

a university

of applied

sciences

(based on

profile and

mission)

Example of

a research

university

(based on

profile and

mission)

Shared body

Main expected results of first project phase (2016-2017):

Conceptual frameworks for the five academic sectors

Conceptual frameworks for: Nursing, Physics, Civil Engineering, Education and History

Detailed assessment frameworks (criteria) for mentioned Subject Areas based on multi-dimensional approach

Matrix model to distinguish between different types of institutions

Detailed test blue print for each of the assessments

Detailed work plan for the creation and implementation of the assessments

White paper explaining costs/benefits for various assessment designs; allowing for evidence based decisions regarding actual comparative assessment phase

What is in it for the student?

What is in it for degree programmes / departments / academic staff?

What is in it for the management and

leadership of institutions?

What is in it for quality assurance /

accreditation?


Logo university enrolled

(optional)

Student will obtain a certificate which

contains:

- his/her individual scores (xx/100)

- overall average scores all participants

(xx/100)

- average scores of peer group of student

(based on comparison of

mission/profile) (xx/100)

- Score cards distinguishing four

identified categories

- Explanation and purpose of the

assessment

- Explanation of the structure of the test:

four categories + comparison to peer

group of student

What is in it for the student ?

CERTIFICATE

Name of studentDate of birth

Home university +

enrolment identification number

Date assessment taken

Reading guide

Description of the assessment and its

aim, explaining its outline and structure

(four categories) and guidelines for

interpretation of score cards.

Logo university enrolled

(optional) Department / staff will obtain

insight into:

- Performance of its individual

students (xx/100)

- Performance of its cohort compared

to overall average scores all

participants (xx/100)

- Performance of its cohort compared

to average scores of peer group of

student (based on comparison of

mission/profile) (xx/100)

- Score cards distinguishing four


- Identification of strengths and

weaknesses of own programme and

students (taking into account own

profile and mission)

What is in it for degree programs / departments / academic staff?

Name of student

Score cardsKnowledge and skills discipline

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3

- Item 1

- Item 2

- Item 3

Ability to apply disciplinary knowledge and skills

in practical situations

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3

- Item 1

- Item 2

- Item 3

Preparation for employability

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3

- Item 1

- Item 2

- Item 3

Preparation for citizenship

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3

- Item 1

- Item 2

- Item 3


What is in it for the management and leadership of

institutions?

Higher Education Institution management / leadership will obtain information

about:

whether the learning outcomes of its programme(s) is/are [not] up-to-standards

whether the learning outcomes [do not (sufficiently)] meet the mission and profile of

the institution / programme

which are the strengths and weaknesses of the program(s) according to the four


whether data / evidence shows if there is room for quality enhancement of (aspects

of) the program (in comparative perspective)

whether teaching / learning / strategies work well or if they should be enhanced /

replaced by more effective ones

whether the programme is able to compete with comparable programmes in an

(inter)national context


What is in it for quality assurance / accreditation?

At international level:

Shows whether international standards are met as agreed in meta-qualifications

frameworks: EQF / QF for EHEA, at transnational sector and subject area level

At national level:

Shows whether absolute, i.e. threshold, quality levels are met by programs

Offers insight into national and international levels of achievement of learning

according to the four identified categories (respecting the mission / profile of

programmes involved

Might (in the longer run) offer opportunities for simplifying quality assurance and

accreditation systems (‘proof is in the eating of the pudding’)


If successful, the outcomes of the feasibility study of CALOHEE will offer

a reliable instrument:

to decide what quality is

to articulate better threshold and average levels in (inter)national

perspective and comparison

to identify the best / most effective approaches in learning, teaching and

assessment to meet the defined learning outcomes

to check whether the Bologna / Europe 2020 objectives are met

delivering data / evidence to build tailor made staff development

programmes

CALOHEE should also be perceived as an additional instrument to the

tool box for developing / maintaining an internal quality culture

E-Mail address:[email protected]

promuovere l’apprendimento incentrato sullo studente nelle ... · erasmus+ (ka 3) -...

Documents