Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
A Typology of Institutional Practices
for the Recognition of Open
Learning in Europe: Some Findings
from the OpenCred Stud...
OpenCred Study
• Aim: to support European policy development
• May to November 2014
• University of Leicester and European...
OpenCred methodology
• Desk research – MOOC portals, journals, e-mails
to colleagues across EU
• Six interviews:
– 2 MOOC ...
First key finding:
There are degrees of formality of recognition
Formality of recognition
Level Descriptors
0 No recognition
1 Completion certificate/badge
2 Certificate/badge with online...
‘Gold standard’ certificates
Certificate from an accredited institution which:
a) ‘formally and clearly states on whose au...
Second key finding
Factors that have the greatest impact on
formality of recognition are:
1. Robustness of assessment
2. A...
Robustness of assessment
Level Descriptors
0 No assessment
1 - Record of completion of activities
- Self-assessment
- Auto...
Affordability for learners
(cost of assessment/ certificate)
Level Descriptors
0 150 EUR or more
1 81 to 149 EUR
2 20 to 8...
Eligibility for assessment/recognition
Level Descriptors
0 No assessment
1 Only members of a specified group/ profession a...
OpenCred Diamond
0
1
2
3
4
Formality of
recognition
Affordability for
learner
Robustness of
assessment
Eligibility for
ass...
Third key finding
Several different diamond-shaped models
emerged, representing different types of open
courses
Examples of recognition models
1. Typical MOOC with little or no recognition
2. Freemium MOOC: learner pays for
assessment...
1. Typical MOOC (little/no recognition)
E.g. CARNET (Croatia) MOOC on Developing Courses in Moodle
0
1
2
3
4
Formality of
...
2. Freemium-model MOOC
E.g. University of Osnabrueck MOOC on Data Structures & Algorithms
0
1
2
3
4
Formality of
recogniti...
3. MOOC with recognition for enrolled
students
E.g. University of Nicosia MOOC on Digital Currencies
0
1
2
3
4
Formality o...
Conclusions
• Robust assessment is central to recognition
– Institutions either pass on the cost to learners or
restrict e...
Recommendations to HEIs
• Give clear info to learners on open course
portals about assessment and recognition
• Give compr...
Key OpenCred References
Andrade, A., Ehlers, U., Caine, A., Carneiro, R., Conole, G. & Kairamo, A. (2011) Beyond OER: Shif...
For further info
Witthaus, G., Childs, M., Nkuyubwatsi, B.,
Conole, G., Inamorato Dos Santos, A. & Punie, Y.,
2015. An Ass...
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are purely those of the authors and may not in
any circumstances be regarded as stati...
And finally…
© G. Witthaus on Flickr CC-BY
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5
×

A Typology of Institutional Practices for the Recognition of Open Learning in Europe: Some Findings from the OpenCred Study

773 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presentation for OER15 in Cardiff, 14 April 2015.

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

A Typology of Institutional Practices for the Recognition of Open Learning in Europe: Some Findings from the OpenCred Study

  1. 1. A Typology of Institutional Practices for the Recognition of Open Learning in Europe: Some Findings from the OpenCred Study By Gabi Witthaus (ILI, University of Leicester) and Andreia Inamorato dos Santos (European Commission, JRC IPTS ) OER15, 14-15 April 2015: Cardiff, Wales
  2. 2. OpenCred Study • Aim: to support European policy development • May to November 2014 • University of Leicester and European Commission (JRC IPTS) • Investigated institutional strategies to recognise non-formal, open learning
  3. 3. OpenCred methodology • Desk research – MOOC portals, journals, e-mails to colleagues across EU • Six interviews: – 2 MOOC teachers – 2 MOOC learners – 2 employers/employer bodies • Analysis – Identification of key factors that influence recognition – Development of diamond model – Analysis of cases using diamond model
  4. 4. First key finding: There are degrees of formality of recognition
  5. 5. Formality of recognition Level Descriptors 0 No recognition 1 Completion certificate/badge 2 Certificate/badge with online identity verification (e.g. Signature Track, Accredible) 3 - Exemption from entrance exam - Certificate conferring up to 4 ECTS credits 4 - Certificate conferring a minimum of 5 ECTS credits - Exemption from a course at issuing institution - ‘Gold standard’ certificate (information, ID verification, supervision) - Continuing professional development (CPD) credits
  6. 6. ‘Gold standard’ certificates Certificate from an accredited institution which: a) ‘formally and clearly states on whose authority it was issued, provides information on the content, level and study load, states that the holder has achieved the desired learning objectives, provides information on the testing methods employed and lists the credits obtained, according to a standard international system or in some other acceptable format b) is demonstrably and clearly based on authentication [i.e. student’s identity is verified] and c) states that the examinations have been administered under supervision and specifies the nature of this supervision.’ (NVAO 2014, p.9)
  7. 7. Second key finding Factors that have the greatest impact on formality of recognition are: 1. Robustness of assessment 2. Affordability of assessment for learners 3. Learners’ eligibility for assessment
  8. 8. Robustness of assessment Level Descriptors 0 No assessment 1 - Record of completion of activities - Self-assessment - Automated checking, e.g. MCQs (No ID verification) - Peer assessment (No ID verification) 2 Online exam with ID verification but no real-time supervision (e.g. Signature Track, Accredible) 3 - Submission of coursework where student is personally known to examiner (f2f or online) - Online exam with ID verification and real-time proctoring (e.g. ProctorU, Proctor2Me, Remote Proctor) 4 - On-site exam (including ‘challenge exams’) - RPL conducted by recognised experts
  9. 9. Affordability for learners (cost of assessment/ certificate) Level Descriptors 0 150 EUR or more 1 81 to 149 EUR 2 20 to 80 EUR 3 1 to 19 EUR 4 No cost to learners
  10. 10. Eligibility for assessment/recognition Level Descriptors 0 No assessment 1 Only members of a specified group/ profession are eligible for completion certificates or badges (CPD) 2 Credit-bearing exams only for registered students 3 Exam available to all, but only students enrolled on programme are eligible for academic credit 4 Everyone is eligible for assessment and recognition
  11. 11. OpenCred Diamond 0 1 2 3 4 Formality of recognition Affordability for learner Robustness of assessment Eligibility for assessment/recogniti on
  12. 12. Third key finding Several different diamond-shaped models emerged, representing different types of open courses
  13. 13. Examples of recognition models 1. Typical MOOC with little or no recognition 2. Freemium MOOC: learner pays for assessment 3. MOOC with recognition for enrolled students
  14. 14. 1. Typical MOOC (little/no recognition) E.g. CARNET (Croatia) MOOC on Developing Courses in Moodle 0 1 2 3 4 Formality of recognition Affordability for learner Robustness of assessment Eligibility for assessment/recogniti on
  15. 15. 2. Freemium-model MOOC E.g. University of Osnabrueck MOOC on Data Structures & Algorithms 0 1 2 3 4 Formality of recognition Affordability for learner Robustness of assessment Eligibility for assessment/recogniti on
  16. 16. 3. MOOC with recognition for enrolled students E.g. University of Nicosia MOOC on Digital Currencies 0 1 2 3 4 Formality of recognition Affordability for learner Robustness of assessment Eligibility for assessment/recogniti on
  17. 17. Conclusions • Robust assessment is central to recognition – Institutions either pass on the cost to learners or restrict eligibility. • Recognition only partial – no whole degrees yet • Online education and assessment still seen by many as less rigorous • On-site exams with identity validation and real- time supervision are seen as being most robust form of assessment • ECTS credits are not yet a widely accepted currency for recognition of open learning
  18. 18. Recommendations to HEIs • Give clear info to learners on open course portals about assessment and recognition • Give comprehensive info about assessment on certificates/ badges • OpenCred framework – a tool for analysing your institution’s recognition model • Collaboration between institutions (e.g. VMPass, OERu) can help learners reap benefits of open learning
  19. 19. Key OpenCred References Andrade, A., Ehlers, U., Caine, A., Carneiro, R., Conole, G. & Kairamo, A. (2011) Beyond OER: Shifting Focus to Open Educational Practices, OPAL Report 2011. Link Camilleri, A.F. & Tannhäuser, A.C. (2013) ‘Chapter 4: Assessment and Recognition of Open Learning’, in L. Squires and A. Meiszner (eds) Openness and Education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.85-118. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013) Maturing of the MOOC; BIS Research Paper 130, September 2013. Link European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2014). Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe: Access, Retention and Employability 2014. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union Eurotech Universities (2014) EuroTech Universities session animates debate on MOOCs and future of education at ESOF2014, 7 July 2014. Link Gaebel, M. (2014) MOOCs: Massive Open Online Course, EUA occasional papers. Link Khalil, H. & Ebner, M., 2014. MOOCs Completion Rates and Possible Methods to Improve Retention - A Literature Review. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Tampere: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA, pp. 1305–1313. Link NVAO (2014) MOOCs and Online HE: A Survey, The Hague: Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders Link Open Education Special Interest Group (2014) Open Education Trend Report, SURF, Netherlands. Link Verstelle, M., Schreuder, M. & Jelgerhuis, H., 2014. Recognition of MOOCs in the Education Sector. 2014 Open Education Trend Report, (March), pp.24–25. Link
  20. 20. For further info Witthaus, G., Childs, M., Nkuyubwatsi, B., Conole, G., Inamorato Dos Santos, A. & Punie, Y., 2015. An Assessment-Recognition Matrix for Analysing Institutional Practices in the Recognition of Open Learning. eLearning Papers, January (40), pp.32–42. Link
  21. 21. Disclaimer: The views expressed here are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Thank you!
  22. 22. And finally… © G. Witthaus on Flickr CC-BY

×