1 / 19

TRUST

TRUST. Meeting minutes 13.02.12. Timo’s presentation. Project end results: Main national organizations collaborate systematically: Forum for regular meetings Shared division of responsibilities Common procedure for updating the definitions and documentations of the collected data

betty
Télécharger la présentation

TRUST

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TRUST Meeting minutes 13.02.12

  2. Timo’s presentation • Project end results: • Main national organizations collaborate systematically: • Forum for regular meetings • Shared division of responsibilities • Common procedure for updating the definitions and documentations of the collected data • Common procedures for collecting QA data • Coordinated use/reuse of collected data

  3. Timo’s presentation(2) • Vagan • Quality monitoring is provided by different organizations – the idea is to provide a common field (ground, measures, data) for classification and QA of the educational quality • Organizations: • ITAK VAK, Institutzmistu ta metodivnavchannya, Stud. Organizations, etc.

  4. Timo’s presentation (3) • Portal for collection of data and knowledge: • Easy access to the portal • Common place for all organizations • What to store? • Collectively agreed on the content • Different procedures for working with the same data(no duplicate data in diff. places) • Simplicity of the data

  5. Timo’s presentation • QA data (open and flexible): • Different indicators and summaries can be computed easily on collected data • Data collected for different national organizations can be combined to indicators • Universities and stakeholders can create their own indicators for their own benchmarking • New data sources can be added to the common portal

  6. Timo’s presentation (5) • QA data is actively used • Different actors use and cross-validate collected data • Universities develop actively indicators for their own strategic needs • Stakeholders develop indicators and validate and benchmark the data Comment: Community-based indicators can be added freely

  7. Timo’s presentation (6) • Common QA basis is developed systematically • National organizations have dedicated responsibilities for development • There is a national plan for augmenting the data coverage • Automatic generation of QA data from legacy systems is developed systematically My comment: automatic report generation??? (free tools and a adapter) Statistics calculation modules

  8. Timo’s presentation (7) • Portal with sufficient functionality • Ability to easily collect the data and to compile the reports for national organizations/QA processes (for political buy in) • Possibility to control the access to the data (confidentiality, integrity) • Possibility to create indicators an summaries • Flexibility to adapt to evolving content • Support of main QA processes

  9. Timo’s presentation (8) • Portal may have in parallel: • Current Ukrainian system of QA • EU QA system • E.g. any other QA system • Procedures: • Form (report) generation based on diff QA indicators • Adding new parameter (steps) • Common concepts to start with: • Ontology of QA data, materials, processes, roles • Common language (common concepts)

  10. Timo’s presentation (9) • Outcome 1 should • Provide the political preconditions to project main goals: • Common documented understanding of the present situation and its shortages • Provide the conceptual preconditions to Outcome 2 (portal) • Ontology of QA data and QA procedures with different roles, functions, etc. • Focus on UA system with EU criteria

  11. Timo’s presentation (10) • Concrete tasks: • Identify the actors in UA QA (also non-obvious ones) • Identify which issues are monitored, by who, by which means, for what purpose • Which things are: • Common with EU partners/EU policy • Missing from UA QA systems • Present only in UA/Eastern system • Identify the common parts of the process and indicators and not mapped ones? • Exists only in EU or only in UA

  12. Timo’s presentation (11) • Portal: conceptual preconditions: • What are the main national QA processes • What data/concepts are involved • Are the data definitions comparable internationally? • Which processes are missing/contradicting

  13. Timo’s presentation (12) • Deliverable 1: • Manual of Ukrainian QA of HEIs • Part I (systemic goals) • Synopsis of EU motivations and trends for QA (based on Damian/ENQA presentation and material + EU partner views) • Damian – EU partner, QA assurance in Europe • Ukrainian strategies and goals for higher education (official documents) • Reflection about the present and envisioned Ukrainian QA of HE (discussions and observations arisen by trainings) • Reality vs declared goals

  14. Timo’s presentation (13) • Deliverable 1: • Manual of Ukrainian QA of HEIs • Part I (systemic goals) • Synopsis of EU motivations and trends for QA (based on Damian/ENQA presentation and material + EU partner views) • Damian – EU partner, QA assurance in Europe • Ukrainian strategies and goals for higher education (official documents) • Reflection about the present and envisioned Ukrainian QA of HE (discussions and observations arisen by trainings) • Reality vs declared goals

  15. Timo’s presentation (14) • Deliverable 1: • Part II (Governance of Ukrainian HE) • Legal framework for direct and indirect (through stakeholders) governance of HE • Formally defined players in the field and their stated goals/tasks • Informal players (stakeholders with demonstrated interest/impact to HE) • International impact to governance (agreements, commitments)

  16. Timo’s presentation (15) • Deliverable 1: • Part III (Structured and annotated documentation of QA processes) • Taxonomies a.o. from ENQA presentation • Institutional/program/sectorial level • Internal/external, per/hierarchical,… • Purpose, responsible actor, other actors, knowledge base, produced documents/results …

  17. Timo’s presentation (16) • Deliverable 1: • During/after training: • Test and challenge the given structure • Place your thoughts, ideas, questions to the structure • Identify possible contributors • Focused writing starts after 4th training • Decisions about structure, responsibilities, editorial roles and tasks, timetables

  18. Timo’s presentation (17) • Dates: • End of March: • agree on the structure of the docs • Who (roles, teams, people) • Timing and schedule for deliverables

  19. Timo’s presentation (18) • Ontology of Ukrainian QA • Formal knowledge model of the concepts needed for detailed documentation of QA procedures • Needs incremental collaborative approach and IT tools + experts in knowledge modeling • Reasonable subset needed to start piloting the portal and portal based processes • Starting from existing national QA procedures

More Related