09 août 2011

Managing Quality Teaching in Higher Education What Works Conference 5-6 December 2011 CETYS University, Mexicali, Mexico

http://www.oecd.org/vgn/images/portal/CIT_731/21/40/42572200IMHE-72.jpgManaging Quality Teaching in Higher Education, What Works Conference, 5-6 December 2011, CETYS University, Mexicali, Mexico. The Conference will reflect on the findings of the IMHE institutional reviews on quality teaching (underway) and discuss broader issues on institution-wide and national policies supporting quality of teaching and learning in higher education. IMHE organises a series of international events on various aspects of institutional management. These events are designed to assist member institutions by reviewing current policy and practice and by disseminating examples of successful innovation. They provide professional development for participants, and can lead to the publication of reports and/or the creation of informal networks.
The next What Works event is a conference on Managing Quality Teaching in Higher Education that will take place on 5-6 December 2011 at CETYS University, Mexicali, Mexico.
The Conference will reflect on the findings of the IMHE institutional reviews on quality teaching (underway) and discuss broader issues on institution-wide and national policies supporting quality of teaching and learning in higher education:
- Pedagogical innovations and effecting change in teaching and learning.
- Support for quality teaching and indicators of effective performance.
- Improving quality teaching with fewer resources and within a competitive setting.
This conference will provide a context in which to examine:

- Implementation strategies and practical approaches for institutions to promote quality teaching and pedagogical innovations;
- Institution-wide policies and practices that reinforce and foster student involvement in teaching, professional and program development, and technological and organisational change for creating conducive learning environments;
- Embedding improved and sustained quality teaching despite diminishing resources and an unpredictable future.
CORE TOPICS

- Indicators and measures of quality teaching
- Aligning the constituents of quality teaching within the institution
- Supporting, valuing and rewarding university teaching
- Engaging students as partners in the teaching process
- Professional development for faculty
- Program and curriculum development
- Organisational change
- Use of ICT for quality teaching. Meeting presentation. Contact: Fabrice.henard@oecd.org.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/img/new/common/logo_en.gifA conference was held at Istanbul Technical University on 12-13 October 2009, and was entitled, "Quality Teaching in Higher Education". It examined ways in which quality teaching can be improved and the main constraints.
The August 2006 seminar attracted around 100 participants and looked at "Governing Bodies of Higher Education Institutions: Roles and Responsibilities". The changing patterns of governance formed the framework for the seminar. The focus was on top level institutional governance, where much has changed in the last decade. The keynote speaker was Alan Larsson, former Minister of Sweden.
The August 2005 seminar focused on human resource management. Many IMHE member institutions were represented, among them, more than 200 participants in the latest "What works - best practice" conference. The highlight of the conference for many was the presentation by the former head of human resources at Harvard University, Ms Polly Price, who started by asking whether professionals from the corporate world could succeed as managers in higher education.
The seminar held in Paris in August 2004 attracted 110 participants. Its theme, “Communicating in Higher Education – Image and Reality”, addressed how various audiences (all of those in contact with an institution, be they students, financial authorities or staff) view the impact of the image projected by higher education institutions. Aside from being part of an institution's broader strategy, image and communication are essential in recruiting students and staff as well as for funding and assessing quality. Also available: Les innovations qui marchent dans l'enseignement supérieur (French).

Posté par pcassuto à 03:08 - - Permalien [#]


EUROPE: Brussels pushes for more east-west mobility

http://www.universityworldnews.com/layout/UW/images/logoUWorld.gifBy Ard Jongsma. The European Union wants to increase mobility to and from its eastern neighbours. In general, the eastern neighbours agree. But a recent conference in Warsaw found that hurdles such as brain drain, visa issues, recognition and reciprocity still hamper a significant volume increase.
Brussels has set aside more funds for mobility under the EU's Eastern Partnership programme in the two years that remain before the anticipated grand overhaul of education and training programmes in 2014. But investing these funds in the most meaningful way is not so easy.
A large conference organised by the Polish presidency of the European Union in Warsaw on 6-7 July convened some 350 people from the EU and its eastern neighbours to discuss how best to expand and optimise mobility and its benefits for individuals, institutions and countries, and how the Eastern Partnership Platform IV, "Contact Between People", can contribute to this.
At the conference, education commissioner Androulla Vassiliou said she was hopeful that mobility could be increased but that some tenacious hurdles continue to thwart the development of mobility to its full potential. "There is no denying that the obstacles to mobility between our regions are numerous," Vassiliou said. "There is the lack of information about mobility opportunities, inadequate financial support and a poor knowledge of foreign languages. But there are also legal barriers, particularly when it comes to obtaining visas or work permits, and there are problems with the recognition of academic work completed abroad."
She was pleased, however, that the conference had identified areas where the two regions can work together to eliminate some of these obstacles. "We will provide financial support through our mobility programmes and we can also provide curricular support through a variety of mechanisms such as the Diploma Supplement and the European Credit Transfer System. But we must also lend more personal support, especially in the form of guidance and counselling, in order to more effectively convince a wider range of individuals to take part," Vassiliou told the conference. One of the people who has witnessed at first hand how mobility can be a life changer is Ukrainian Yegor Domanov. He travelled to Finland on a Marie Curie grant to perform research into lipid biophysics and now works as an engineer of advanced research at L'Oreal in Paris.
"My career track is a good example of how it should work," he said. It is, but it also exposes the caveats of mobility and the trial-and-error nature of European support to it. "I actually was funded twice by Marie Curie grants," said Domanov. "First I had the incoming international fellowship, which got me to the University of Helsinki. The second was a European Reintegration Grant, which got me to France and topped up a local foundation grant." European Reintegration Grants were originally meant to support reintegration in the sending country. That was a great idea but it failed to work. More...

Posté par pcassuto à 02:38 - - Permalien [#]

FRANCE: Responding to pressures to internationalise

http://www.universityworldnews.com/layout/UW/images/logoUWorld.gifBy Cecile Hoareau. French higher education has lived something of a revolution over the past decade. The specificities of French higher education, which put it at odds with the rest of the world and have accentuated France's reputation as a champion of anti-globalisation, are being washed away by the current government through a cumulative process of liberalisation and differentiation backed by unprecedented public investment. French universities are tacking up the challenge of globalisation in all its meanings. The previous system, which inspired Russia in the 19th Century and relied on differentiation between research institutions (CNRS), selective training schools for elite civil servants and managers (grandes ecoles) and non-selective universities, had left universities at the bottom of the pile, leading to an absence of international recognition.
Three particularly significant reforms, which benefited from earlier coordinated European efforts under the Bologna process as well as strategic political appointments of twice minister for higher education and research Francois Fillon as prime minister as well as the discreet advice of Bernard Belloc and Jean-Marc Monteil, respectively special advisors to the president and prime minister, have moved French higher education in a new direction.
The first reform is the law for the freedom and responsibilities of universities of 11 August 2007, which liberalised the French university landscape by giving more managerial autonomy to institutions, and hence to university presidents, in the recruitment of staff, the management of assets and the ability to raise income through the creation of foundations. From an Anglo-American perspective, this model of autonomous universities is common. And it would be hard to comprehend how significant this law is in bypassing the traditional opposition of the higher education community against a retreat of central government control. Earlier legislative proposals failed because of serious opposition, for example, in 1986 with Devaquet or 2003 under Luc Ferry. According to Christine Musselin from the Centre de Sociologie des Organisations in Sciences Po, this opposition comes from a traditional formation of academic life around discipline-oriented faculties, resulting in a distrust of academics toward the university president. More autonomy also involves an increase in workload to adapt to these reforms.
A second reform includes an effort toward differentiation based on public investment. This differentiation operates on perceived managerial and research excellence across faculty and institutions, and is based on the idea that globalisation and equality do not go hand in hand: certain institutions and scholars need to be favoured to become internationally visible. It includes the reform of the regulations of teachers-researchers of 22 April 2009, which set up performance-related bonuses and chairs of excellence. Operation Campus, a plan to concentrate public investment in flagship campuses, a spin-off from France's EUR35 billion (US$50 billion) investment Plan de Relance strategy to relaunch its economy, saw 12 universities get an unprecedented EUR5 billion in public investment.
Finally, French higher education is also opening up to the global environment, developing international partnerships and embracing the 'Great Brain Race' by targeting the international student market, particularly from Asia. Interestingly, in a somewhat paradoxical manner first underlined by Sophie Meunier and Philip Gordon in the case of trade, the French embraced globalisation at the same time as they shouted out loudly against it. The French government presented globalisation as a threat to justify and stimulate these reforms. The Shanghai university rankings, in which only a handful of French universities make it to the top 100, caused serious offence in a country which prided itself on its historic scholarly reputation, and still dominates debates regarding the reform of universities.
The publication of the Shanghai rankings coincided with the emergence of a very critical debate regarding French higher education. Aghion and Cohen's 2004 report for the Social and Economic Council underlined the common perception of 'crisis, impossible reforms and decline of French universities'. And a recent report by the Institut Montaigne entitled Gone for Good underlined the brain drain of French academics toward the US. The arguments took off. The French government did not meet the traditional opposition from the higher education sector to its new wave of reforms. The 2007 proposal even surprisingly brought in a certain level of consensus, opposition coming only from the relatively minor and most radical trade unions, such as the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire (Communist Revolutionary League). Fundamentally speaking, the French government and its higher education landscape face the same double pressure as most other countries in the world; massification of higher education coupled with worldwide competition for the best and the brightest.
Implementing the reforms that respond to these pressures presents several challenges, including one of available human resources and expertise. New French universities require new managers trained in a more autonomous management style, who understand the challenges inherent to a global higher education landscape and embrace an open and free space to exchange best practice and think about policy-oriented solutions. These managerial challenges are tackled French-style with a strong input from the central government and the civil service. Expertise and policy solutions still mostly come from reports, which are centrally commissioned by the government. Aware of the new needs, the training school attached to the Ministry for National Education ESEN (Ecole Superieure de l'Education Nationale) and the publicly-funded organisation AMUE (Agence de Mutualisation des Universités et Etablissements) set up a training programme for existing university managers.
Another trend, according to a senior government official, would be to bring in civil servant managers of public administrations, trained in selective public school administration by the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, to take over managerial positions traditionally taken up by academics. This process of 'muddling through' new structures using pre-existing resources is defining the still uncertain shape of French higher education, one where global liberal pressures will have to embrace the French tradition of civil service.
Cecile Hoareau is a researcher in the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley. Her article "Globalisation and Dual Modes of Higher Education Policymaking in France: Je t'aime moi non plus" is available on the CSHE site.

Posté par pcassuto à 02:33 - - Permalien [#]

GLOBAL: Do rankings promote trickle down knowledge?

http://www.universityworldnews.com/layout/UW/images/logoUWorld.gifBy Ellen Hazelkorn. During the 1980s, US President Ronald Reagan promulgated a strategy for economic growth based on cutting the top tax bracket from 70% to 50% and then to 28%. 'Trickle down' economics or 'Reaganomics' argued that putting more money in the hands of the elite would create more jobs and lessen inequality. International evidence, however, shows the results have been the opposite of the one predicted: while there is some benefit eventually for those who are relatively poor, the distribution of income and wealth has been increasingly unequal. In fact, the huge budget deficits facing many countries today are the result of the low taxation policies favoured by this strategy.
Is there a lesson here for the way rankings are being used to justify concentrating resources in a few elite universities? Has self-interest become confused with public interest? For many governments, the world-class university has become the panacea for ensuring success in the global economy. This is especially true in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, albeit the trends were apparent before this. Institutions and nations are constantly measured against each other using indicators of global capacity and potential in which comparative and competitive advantages come into play, as part of a wider geo-political struggle. These factors are driving governments and institutions to make profound changes to their higher education systems, pursue more elite agendas, alter their education programmes and privilege some disciplines and fields of inquiry in order to conform to indicators set by global rankings.
Three brief implications of this phenomenon:
1- Excellence initiatives

France, Germany, Russia, Spain, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Finland, India, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam and Latvia - among many other countries - have launched 'excellence' initiatives to create what are euphemistically called 'world-class universities'. Individual US states (for example Texas and Kentucky) have also sought to build or boost flagship universities, elevating them to Tier One status, a reference to US News & World Report College Rankings. The prevailing response has been the neo-liberal model, which concentrates resources in a small number of elite universities, often referred to as the 'Harvard-here' model. The aim is to encourage greater vertical or hierarchical (reputational) differentiation between higher education institutions, with much greater distinction between research (elite) universities and teaching (mass) higher education institutions. Because few countries can afford the estimated EUR2 billion annually per institution required for a place among the world's top 20 without sacrificing other policy objectives, many governments are questioning their commitment to 'mass' higher education and asking whether their institutions are elite or selective enough. This comment by President Sarkozy in 2009 is typical: "We want the best universities in the world...How many universities do we have? 83? We're not going to divide the money by 83." Changes in UK funding policy are likely to intensify competition for elite students, increasing concentration in a handful of universities. Institutions have followed a similar strategy. There is mounting evidence of changes to admissions policies to attract more elite students because of the correlation between rankings and selectivity. This involves admitting students on a probationary or part-time basis or establishing associated colleges to hide weaker students from official data returns or limiting class or cohort size. Others have abandoned access or associated degree programmes because of their affect on graduation-completion rates.
2- The 'world-class teaching universities' retort

The over-emphasis on 'world-class' universities has provoked a retort which says we need not just 'world-class research universities' but also 'world-class teaching universities' - as if there are only two models. A much-criticised problem with rankings is their over-reliance on bibliometrics, which privileges basic big-lab research in the bio-medical sciences. But not only does this method value some disciplines, ideas and faculty as more important than others; it also assumes citation count is an appropriate measure of impact. It reduces research's contribution to society as something occurring only within the academy, and ignores the fact that global challenges require collaborative solutions and inter-locking knowledge and innovation systems. Likewise, assuming 'teaching' refers to educational provision, there is huge diversity in pedagogical, curricular, disciplinary approaches that is ignored by the simplicity of this construct. We would be aghast, for example, if all actors performed using the same technique! Not only is the diversity of institutional missions much broader than research versus teaching, but the attributes of research-teaching and 'world-class'-regional are not mutually exclusive.
3- The 'lift all boats' chorus

There is a strong and vocal chorus arguing that investment in a few elite universities or scientific disciplines will 'lift all boats'. This is based on the view that high-ranked universities are better than those lower ranked.
While it is true top-ranked universities produce the majority of all peer-reviewed papers, concentration is most relevant only in the four disciplines of 'big science'. However, it is not obvious that the elite model of knowledge creation will create sufficient, patentable or transferable knowledge that can be exploited and used by society. Indeed, there is mounting evidence that concentration could reduce overall national research capacity with specific "knock-on consequences for regional economic performance and the capacity for technology innovation", according to the 2003 Lambert Review.
The key factor underpinning improved research performance is the total level of investment. But ultimately it is the capacity to translate new knowledge into new or improved products and services - none of which is measured by rankings. The 'world-class' concept has promulgated a model of higher education derived from a handful of well-established US elite universities with considerable budgets and endowment earnings. But, should higher education policy simply be about "producing hordes of Nobel laureates or cabals of tenure and patent bearing professors", according to a 2008 Lisbon Council document?
Higher education operates within a complex eco-system; fundamental changes will have long-lasting implications for society and the economy. Governments and universities must stop obsessing about global rankings and the top 1% of the world's 15,000 institutions. Instead of simply rewarding the achievements of elites and flagship institutions, policy needs to focus on the quality of the system-as-a-whole. There is little evidence that trickle-down works.
Professor Ellen Hazelkorn is Vice President of research and enterprise, dean of the Graduate Research School and head of the Higher Education Policy Research Unit (HEPRU) at the Dublin Institute of Technology in Ireland. Her book Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education. The Battle for World-Class Excellence, is published by Palgrave MacMillan, 2011.

Posté par pcassuto à 02:23 - - Permalien [#]

EUROPE: Access and quality are not mutually exclusive

http://www.universityworldnews.com/layout/UW/images/logoUWorld.gifBy Allan Päll. It is true that governments in many developed countries see the need to increase higher education attainment rates, as William Patrick Leonard points out. And he is certainly sadly correct to highlight that increasing student numbers is often seen as a purely fiscal measure. But his arguments about the need to define the potential of learners better, however true that might be in certain cases, do not convince me that changes are needed in our higher education system.
The system has had to adapt rapidly to globalisation and the increased role of market economics in the running of higher education institutions. Future students are being told that higher education yields the same economic benefits as it did several decades ago or that it is a highway to a secure life. And thus expectations are being driven up, leading students to accept high debt levels resulting from the normalisation of higher education.
The personal (economic) benefit is to a degree dependent on the state of a country's economy or the societal values being nurtured in its education system and beyond. But despite all the negative talk, it is clear that if rapid economic development is to continue, we need more highly educated people and that many developed countries are, for example, already falling behind in the numbers of engineers they need to develop. This means that we should prioritise the actual competencies that students gain from higher education, which will help them stay in employment and benefit society in the long term.
There is thus a broad argument for supporting investment in higher education because of the societal gains it offers. I would therefore argue that increasing the number of people aspiring to a qualification is not the core of the problem. Rather, it is the lack of an adequate response from policy-makers and universities to the issue of maintaining standards while engaging more learners. Furthermore, a crucial argument for widening participation is the empowering role that higher education plays. It would be wrong to advocate some form of exact way of measuring the potential of those who might be suited to be students as sometimes this only emerges when certain conditions are met. And that cannot happen if some people are excluded.
We should also keep in mind that in a number of countries, a stratification of higher education institutions has emerged in which the older, traditional institutions that are more prestigious are filled with students who were almost guaranteed a place in higher education due to their socio-economic or cultural standing in society. But these institutions don't always do as much in transforming and creating potential in individual learners as many other institutions that actively engage students who mainly come from different backgrounds. So the question quickly becomes one about what the mission of educators and higher education is and the added value they confer on society as a whole. And in this, we should bear in mind that much of the added value will be difficult to measure. But one could say that educating those who are the first in their family to go into higher education is an accomplishment in itself. Elite institutions may also benefit from the potential that widening participation measures tap into.
So how do we both widen participation and maintain the quality of higher education? It boils down to what we learn, why we learn it, and how we best do that - these are questions which are not at the forefront when only economic arguments for higher education are used by students, families, employers or politicians. Thus the situation described by Leonard should rather be seen as a perverse reaction that is triggered by a lack of incentives for people to stay in higher education. Unemployment and high dropout rates should not be seen as unintended consequences of a failure to appropriately meet an increased demand for higher education, because unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, is still much lower for people with a higher education qualification.
Indeed it is not only institutional support, as Catherine Montgomery writes, but the holistic system of learning that enables people to become engaged in higher education. We need to find out more about why people are not incentivised to benefit from higher education, and why students drop out. It's not necessarily about throwing more financial resources at higher education but about bringing people together. And fortunately, in a world where 'facebooking' has become a verb, this is much easier to achieve than ever before. Thus the reaction towards increasing numbers of learners should be a focus on their autonomy as individuals and learners. We should talk more about the teaching methodology we use, the flexibility of our curricula and the changes that need to be made to support widening participation. In one of our projects in the European Students' Union we rolled out a student-centred learning concept based on research in the area that highlights some key issues in relation to this.
One of the most important issues that emerged about the effectiveness of learning is that different individuals from different backgrounds learn and engage in higher education in different ways. However, often the environment in higher education institutions or the structure of the curriculum conform to the notion of students being essentially the same as they were 30 years ago, and are blind to diversity. This means that higher education is less effective than it could be. So, enrolling more students but failing to adapt to a more diverse student body simply shows that higher education institutions have not planned properly for widening participation and is not necessarily an argument for building a more selective system. The answer to the issues raised by Leonard lies in changing our teaching methodology rather than in trying to avoid change by locking universities' doors.
One interesting example that has driven change in Europe is the increase in student mobility. Many institutions and student organisations have had to adapt and build new support systems after realising that they could not accept international students without providing specific support or counselling to help them overcome the difficulties of cultural adjustment. And with many surveys and research confirming that international experience is more valued than ever, this will also help to break traditional understandings of learning in a higher education context. It will also require us to reconfigure our mindset to understand that failure is an opportunity to learn. But, as Montgomery cleverly points out, obstacles often come as a result of the gaps between disciplines and failure can be averted by the provision of the right learning environment. Resources in institutions should thus be weighted heavily towards making students more autonomous at the beginning of their studies and that would save money in the long term. In the end, it is a question of how we make the best use of learning for every individual.

Posté par pcassuto à 02:17 - - Permalien [#]


Stepford Universities? Differentiation in the New Higher Education Landscape

http://www.universityworldnews.com/images/photos/photo_1821.gifAbout
What should the role of universities and colleges be? Do they have an obligation to Canadians? Are research universities failing undergraduate students?
Higher Education Strategy Associates (HESA) is pleased to announce a new conference in its line-up of events for this year. Stepford Universities? Differentiation in the New Higher Education Landscape will take place September 28-29 in Toronto.
Conference Themes
1. The many missions of higher education. This theme invites participants to showcase different higher education models and to explore diverging institutional missions. It asks when and where narrowly focussed missions can succeed, and looks at case studies for a variety of different types.
2. The role of incentives and quality assurance mechanisms.
University financing and accreditation structures restrain growth in some areas while promoting development in others. These complex incentive structures have helped to create the current landscape of universities and colleges across Canada. How can institutions differentiate and thrive under these restraints? Are changes needed? If so, how should the policy environment be changed to offer a more appropriate system of incentives?
3. Image and Promotion. Institutions depend heavily on their reputation to draw students and funding. Reputation is increasingly linked to factors that often seem outside of the institution's control, such as league tables, media reactions, and public sentiments. This session looks at how inter-institution and international competitions for prestige have affected institutional mission, takes a close look at relationships between media and institutions, and looks to professionals, academics, and marketing experts for guidelines on navigating these issues.
4. Time and Place. Institutions and governments often flirt with the possibility of offering baccalaureate degrees at colleges, and offering intensive programs at a reduced length. Do these possibilities offer an effective means of increasing degree offerings and diversifying the sector, or are the risks to quality and competitiveness too great? Are there other options that need to be considered?

Posté par pcassuto à 02:13 - - Permalien [#]

CAEI 2012 - A Internacionalização: Componente essencial da qualidade do ensino superior no século 21

http://caie-caei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cabecera_2012.jpgCAEI Brasil 2012
A segunda edição do CAEI será realizada de 25 a 28 de abril de 2012, no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. As três organizações na origem do evento, a Organização Universitária Interamericana (OUI), o Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) e o Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC), e novos parceiros tais como o Conselho de Reitores das Universidades Brasileiras (CRUB), o Fórum das Assessorias das Universidades Brasileiras para Assuntos Internacionais (FAUBAI) e a Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) colaborarão ativamente na edição 2012.
As Américas, parceiras do mundo

A colaboração interamericana no campo da pesquisa e da mobilidade acadêmica cresceu muito na última década. Numerosos expertos acreditam no forte potencial de desenvolvimento da cooperação universitária nas Américas e destacam a necessidade de promover vínculos de colaboração cada vez mais sólidos no ensino superior de acordo com as novas tendências do século 21.
O Congresso das Américas sobre Educação Internacional (CAEI) tem um imenso potencial para enfrentar este desafio. Em resumo, o CAEI quer ser um espaço fecundo de diálogo interamericano para os líderes do campo a fim de discutir as prioridades relacionadas com a internacionalização do ensino superior. Em conseqüência, este evento representa um fórum dinâmico para aprofundar a colaboração mútua entre os atores do ensino superior das Américas.
Venham encontrar parceiros e aliados potenciais e:

• Partilhar sua visão e as melhores práticas em educação internacional favorecendo a qualidade e inovação
• Debater as diversas políticas, métodos e tendências emergentes no ensino superior que afetam o conjunto das Américas
• Fortalecer parcerias atuais e criar novas alianças
• Analisar as questões relativas à internacionalização do ensino superior numa perspectiva Norte - Sul e Sul - Sul
• Desenvolver redes de colaboração e identificar novas oportunidades em educação
• Fazer recomendações e dar avisos em matéria de educação a organizações e fóruns regionais tais como a Organização dos Estados americanos (OEA), e contribuir à elaboração de programas respondendo às necessidades e prioridades atuais
Antecedentes – Edição precedente

A primeira edição do CAEI realizou-se em outubro de 2010, em Calgary, Canadá. O evento reuniu mais de 650 participantes de 44 países de cinco continentes. Graças ao enorme sucesso desta edição, o objetivo de contribuir à criação de espaços comuns no ensino superior foi amplamente alcançado.
Melhores práticas, tendências atuais, paradigmas emergentes e aspectos fundamentais da internacionalização do ensino superior: tais foram as temáticas centrais desta primeira edição, que também propôs espaços suplementares de discussão e numerosas oportunidades de networking com organizações de todo o hemisfério.
As principais atividades da primeira edição permitiram aos delegados de participar de um debate em plenária sobre a criação de um espaço comum para o ensino superior nas Américas, uma entrevista em plenária sobre a internacionalização, 6 workshops de desenvolvimento e 49 sessões paralelas, contando com 114 conferencistas.
Estas sessões trataram de sete temáticas, nas quatro línguas das Américas (francês, espanhol, inglês e português). Expertos de alto nível, reitores de universidades, presidentes de grupos de pesquisa, profissionais da cooperação internacional e professores atuando na colaboração no ensino superior participaram das atividades do CAEI, além de ministros e representantes de diversos corpos diplomáticos. Este evento único, que se realizará a cada 18 meses, será imprescindível para as instituições de ensino superior das Américas.

Posté par pcassuto à 01:51 - - Permalien [#]

IAU-CAIE Webinar on Indicators of Internationalization in Higher Education

http://caie-caei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cabecera_2012.jpgRegistration is now open for the August 10, 2011 collaborative webinar offered by the organizers of the Conference of the Americas on International Education and IAU. Eva Egron-Polak, IAU Secretary General and co-author of the report on the 3rd Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education will present the report's key findings. She will also discuss possible indicators of internationalization that can serve to measure the extent to which international dimensions have been integrated into aspects of academic programs and administrative operation of higher education institutions. To register please visit the CAIE website under the 'Webinars' tab. The Webinar will be offered in English.

Posté par pcassuto à 01:40 - - Permalien [#]

Higher Education and Education for All

Front cover IAU Horizons 17.1 - Eng This issue presents the outcomes of IAU’s recent Global Meeting of Associations (GMA IV), and IAU’s other on-going projects and activities. The In-Focus section includes a report on IAU’s activities in the field of Higher Education and Education for All and a selection of articles profiling projects in this field from around the world. In addition, this volume provides information on the upcoming IAU 2011 International Conference and, as usual, it features sections on: News from Members; IAU Collaboration and Networking; New Publications, and the Global Calendar of Events of which a longer version is available online. Download Vol.17 No.1 of IAU Horizons.
IAU and Higher Education for Education for All (EFA)
What began as a modest pilot in 2005 has evolved into one of IAU core activities, implemented as part of the recent 3-year grant from Sida. It stems from the Association’s firm belief that achieving Education for All (EFA) and education-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) may be impossible without strong and on-going collaboration with and input from the higher education and research community. However findings from the Pilot and the IAU Experts’ Seminar (January 2007, Maputo, Mozambique) concluded higher education’s potential and collaboration remain under-exploited often due to a persistent lack of communication and an absence of a common language between various EFA stakeholders and the HE sector. If implicated, higher education’s role is often reduced to teacher education. Yet university research in diverse fields and its community outreach activities have a direct/indirect impact on education. Not only do EFA stakeholders need to make full use of higher education’s expertise, knowledge and innovation but higher education itself needs to recognize its own potential contribution and engage more in the EFA Global Movement.
Project dual-approach
The project was designed to:
- provide information to the HE/research sector on its potential role in the EFA initiative;
- build capacities to enhance the participation of the HE sector in EFA-related activities.
Project Outcomes

Community building: the set-up of a Reference Group comprising both representatives from the HE sector (institutions and associations) and cooperation agencies, covering all regions of the world. The Group has served an advisory role for all project’s activities and participated in the greater dissemination of IAU work in this field.
Awareness raising: the publication of the brochure entitled Why and How Can Higher Education Contribute to All Levels and Types of Education? which aim was to increase the readers’ understanding of how higher education contributes to EFA/related MDGs and how it can do so more systematically. The brochure incorporated a language familiar to both the HE sector and that of the EFA Movement to facilitate making the connection and to overcome misunderstanding between the two communities. It was published in both in English and French and distributed widely. It is posted on the IAU website and HEEFA portal.
Information dissemination: the creation of the collaborative HEEFA (Higher Education and EFA) Portal – www.heefa.net and its bi-monthly Newsletter, entitled Linking the HE community to EFA and related MDGs. Its uniqueness lies in its specificity to disseminate information of only higher education initiatives in EFA-related fields. It contains a Project database on HE activities in EFA/related MDGs and an Expert database of CVs of experts from the higher education sector working in this field. The Portal exists in English and French versions and provides the framework for the possibility to be later developed into other languages.
Capacity building: the development of a module that gathers key EFA stakeholders and universities at the local/national level to define and agree on a common activity to help reach EFA/related MDGs locally. It challenges participants to “think out of the box”, to perceive the role of higher education in a new light, and to identify concrete tools to strengthen/reinforce HE participation in local EFA activities. The instrument was successfully tested in two different locations – developing and developed countries and in Spanish/English and French. The first session was organized with the Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos, in Cuernavaca, Mexico, and the second followed in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso in cooperation with the University of Ouagadougou and the Ministry of Basic Education and Literacy. Both sessions ended with the validation of an action plan developed by the participants.
Stocking-taking and review: the organisation of an invitationonly Innovation Conference, held in December 2010, at UNESCO in Paris, France to mark the end of this project’s phase. Some 50 representatives from the HE sector and cooperation agencies worldwide came together to evaluate the progress made towards improved inclusion of HE/research in EFA/related MDGs and to the review the project’s outcomes and propose ideas for a way forward. Participants unanimously called for the ongoing need to promote the role of HE in EFA and related MDGs, and collectively recommended outcomes be consolidated by the IAU with the development of phase two of the project. More concretely, the validated recommendations included wider dissemination of the work done and tools developed to all EFA stakeholders and through the media; the maintenance and improvement of already developed information tools; renewed implementation of capacity building module and a working model to facilitate replication elsewhere.
The realization of this project received support from the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida), the Working Group for Higher Education of the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA-WGHE) and UNESCO Participation Fund.
Contacts: Isabelle Turmaine (i.turmaine@iau-aiu.net) or Nadja Kymlicka (n.kymlicka@iau-aiu.net).
15 IN FOCUS: Higher Education and EFA
15 IAU and Higher Education for Education for All (EFA)
16 Achieving EFA through Transformative Research, by Norzaini Azman, Malaysia
17 Higher Education Structure and Education for All, by Loise P.W. Gichuhi, Kenya
18 A call to action: How Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) can take the lead in achieving Education for All, by Valtencir Maldonado Mendes, Spain
19 Role of higher education institutions in financing basic education: challenges and perspectives, by Moussa Mbegnouga, Senegal
20 Higher Education Opportunities for Students with Disability at the University of Delhi, by Neerja Sharma, India
21 Rationale for higher education engagement for EFA, by Leandro R. Tessler, Brazil
22 Read at school and at the university, by Jocelyne Trouillot-Lévy, Haiti
23 IAU Project on higher education/research for EFA and related MDGs, by Isabelle Turmaine and Nadja Kymlicka, IAU
Download Vol.17 No.1 of IAU Horizons. The in Focus theme of the next issue of IAU Horizons (Volume 17 No 2), to be released in October 2011, will be: Equitable Access and Success in Higher Education. It ties in with the IAU 2011 International Conference theme (see: page 4 & 5 of this issue or www.iau-aiu.net). Should you wish to contribute a paper for this upcoming issue, please contact us h.vantland@iau-aiu.net and or iau@iau-aiu.net.

Posté par pcassuto à 01:21 - - Permalien [#]

CHEA, US - For-Profit Higher Education

http://www.chea.org/images/chea-vert.gifThe summary of the one-day meeting convened by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Washington, DC (USA) on March 21, 2011 on Exploring the Future of International For-Profit Higher Education and Quality Assurance: Where are we now and where do we go from here? is available UNESCO CHEA.

EXPLORING THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL FOR-PROFIT HIGHER EDUCATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE: WHERE ARE WE NOW AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? A CHEA – UNESCO MEETING. SUMMARY, March 21, 2011, Washington, DC.

A meeting on for-profit higher education was convened on 21 March 2011 in Washington, DC by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It brought together some 25 participants representing executives of for-profit colleges and universities, academic researchers who focus on this sector and accreditation and quality assurance experts. The executives of for-profit universities and colleges were mainly from the leading U.S. institutions such as Kaplan, Inc.,The University of Phoenix, Laureate Education and Career Education Corporation. A representative of an Indian for-profit provider, NIIT (USA) Inc., attended the meeting. Other participants included quality assurance agencies and academics from Egypt, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States, the International Finance Corporation and the Commonwealth of Learning.
Purposes of the meeting
Following the various discussions of private and for-profit colleges and universities that occurred at UNESCO’s 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, this meeting had three purposes:
1. To frame the emerging role of for-profit higher education as it relates to the international activity of colleges, universities and quality assurance/accreditation organizations and, in particular, the role that the for-profit sector plays in providing additional opportunity for those seeking higher education.
2. To explore the feasibility of developing some common principles of accountability and transparency across all higher education institutions nationally and internationally.
3. To prepare and publish a summary that provides a foundation for future consideration of international for-profit higher education and provides background for a possible UNESCO Forum on Private Higher Education to be held in 2012.
The participants were provided with a wealth of literature published on for-profit higher education provision which informed and enriched the debate. This was a significant opportunity to frame the emerging international dialogue on the growth and impact of the for-profit sector. A key purpose was to discuss, given recent news coverage of the for-profit sector in the United States, whether it was a problematic element in the higher education system or made a useful contribution to increasing access.
UNESCO’s interest in private higher education provision had been heightened by the 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, where it became clear that such provision would be important for many of its 193 Member States as they struggled to meet increasing demand. Governments seek UNESCO’s advice on the policies that they should adopt for integrating the private sector into their higher education provision. There are parallels with earlier UNESCO work (with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) on guidelines for quality assurance for cross-border higher education and (with CHEA) on combating degree mills.
CHEA’s interest has been focused on creating connections between the for-profit and non-profit higher education sectors in the United States, seeking benefit from the expanded access opportunities that are made available while discouraging practices in both sectors that might prove problematic for students.
An important question is how the for-profit sector can be regulated without strangling it. Is it possible to develop some common principles of accountability and transparency for all providers of higher education? Although this meeting focused on the U.S. experience, future meetings will look at the reality of for-profit higher education in other countries.
Models of for-profit higher education

Private higher education is a broad continuum of many types of providers. Although this meeting was billed as being about for-profit providers, we must first ask if this distinction is helpful. All private providers try to make a surplus and appear much the same on the ground, especially in developing countries.
A key issue is the business model used by the for-profit sector. The model created in the United States, with investors seeking substantial financial returns, has raised many questions. However, taking an international perspective, it may be that distinguishing within the private sector between for-profit and not-for-profit institutions is unhelpful. Public universities become profit-making enterprises when they operate outside their home jurisdictions. In the Arab countries, governments are giving land to private institutions because it is good for development.
Because developing countries have had to spend significant public resources on pursuing the United Nations 2000 Millennium Development Goals in other areas, they have tended to give the market an important role in higher education. A key task is to help governments see a positive role for the private sector. Legitimate for-profit institutions welcome strong quality assurance frameworks, but ask that they be applied fairly across the whole higher education sector.
Public institutions have to break even and re-invest any surpluses. The key question is what surpluses are spent on. All public institutions are engaged in making cross-subsidies among units. However, the private sector may be more disciplined about the way it reinvests surpluses. One reason advanced for the success of the for-profit sector in the United States is that public institutions have priced themselves out of the market and the for-profit higher education institutions have taken advantage of online technology to drop prices.
The for-profit sector has been accused of questionable recruitment practices and low graduation rates. Representatives of the sector from the United States said that they had improved in this regard, beginning some years ago. This had resulted in significantly reduced recruitment by some institutions. However, graduation rates are a difficult performance measure to apply because of student mobility among institutions...
Middle East and Arab Region

In the Middle East, one country checks an overseas institution’s intentions for its activities against its mission statement for its home country when reviewing its application to operate. Sometimes incoming institutions do not give faculty any role in governance and show little understanding of the local context. Curricula tend to focus on business, with some engineering. Admission requirements are often set below what would be required at home (e.g., in Australia, India or the UK), there is little student support and the faculty are frequently poorly trained or briefed for their role and are given no opportunities for professional development or research.
In the Arab region, all external quality assurance agencies now follow European, UK or U.S. methods and there really is a common quality assurance language. With many joint degrees and much franchising, international collaboration on quality assurance is a necessity. Open and distance learning is still a challenge as is the multiplication of overseas campuses, which makes conducting quality assurance from the home country more difficult. With many countries seeking to become education hubs, the number of these campuses may continue to increase.
There is a danger that when institutions seek foreign accreditation, local and national needs can be downplayed. There is also recourse to accreditation mills by some would-be providers in Arab countries...
Conclusions

The discussion showed that the for-profit sector can deliver education in the public interest. Accreditation and quality assurance are important services to the public and are helping to make governments more comfortable with a variety of business models in higher education. It is important to pursue the dialogue about for-profit education within the academy as well as with governments. This will help to build bridges and increase trust.

Posté par pcassuto à 01:11 - - Permalien [#]