ects new developments professor luc françois director of educational affairs
TRANSCRIPT
ECTS
New developments
Professor Luc François
Director of Educational Affairs
ECTS
1. Tuning• Competences
• Knowledge & curricula
• ECTS accumulation system
• Teaching & assessment
2. ECTS in LLL
3. Grading scale
4. Evaluation study load
5. Key features
ECTS: new developments
Bologna Introduction of a system of readable
and comparable degrees
Following summits: Profiles, competencies, , learning
outcomes, …
New developments
Start: objectives of the learning process
From teacher- to student oriented approach
From knowledge to competencies From input to output Changing role of the teacher
New European approach
Quality Assurance, to be realised by
Evaluation Internal External
Accreditation
New European programmes Tuning Higher Education Structures
in Europe Quality Culture Project TEEP 2002 (Transnational European
Evaluation Project in 2002)
Dublin descriptors: competencies and learning outcomes for Ba and Ma
1. Tuning: objectives Implementing the Bologna process Implementing two cycle system Common reference points (discipline,
HEI) Professional profiles and compatible
learning outcomes Employability: LLL Language understood by
stakeholders
1. Tuning: 4 lines 1 Competences
2 Knowledge and curricula
3 ECTS as accumulation system
4 Methods of teaching, learning and assessment
1. Tuning – line 1Competences
Questionnaires to graduates, employers, academics
Distinction between ‘importance’ and ‘achievement’ of learning outcomes
Distinction between general, academic and subjectrelated competences
1. Tuning – line 1Competences
Correspondance between ‘graduates’ and ‘employers’
‘internationalisation’: low importance and achievement
Academics ‘general knowledge’: high ‘Social skills’: low
1. Tuning – line 2Knowledge and curricula Agreement on discipline related
competencies Aversion for external pressure for
harmonising content Agreement about relation between
learning outcomes and content QA accepted as instrument for
accreditation
1. Tuning – line 2Knowledge and curricula
Core curriculum in the first cycle? Common elements in all European
curricula (beta) Common elements in a common
European programme (Eurobachelor) Common set of expected learning
outcomes
1. Tuning – line 2Knowledge and curricula
Second cycle
Common framework is contra-productive
Strategic alliances and Joint Masters
1. Tuning – line 3ECTS as accumulationsystem
Importance of credits for comparison and combination of studytracks
One system (ECTS) is preferable ECTS-credits: from relative to
absolute value
1. Tuning – line 3ECTS as accumulationsystem Relation with
competencies course descriptions levelindicators
Relation with non-formal tracks Integration of new units, modules and
grades Importance of Diplomasupplement:
portfolio
1. Tuning – line 3ECTS as accumulationsystem
Relation between credits and QA Recognition if credit related to level
and learning outcomes Description of complexity, creativity
and profundity Credit related to academic standards Established (international) system of
QA
1. Tuning – line 3ECTS as accumulationsystem
Studytime Related to discipline By academics Influenced by
Concept of curriculum Methods of teaching, learning and
evaluation Attitude and possibilities of student
1. Tuning – line 3ECTS as accumulationsystem Length of the academic year
34-40 weeks a year 40-42 hours a week 1520 hours a year on average 1 credit = 25-26 hours on average 60 cr = 9 months (34-40 weeks) 75 cr = 12 months (46-56 weeks) 90 cr = 14 months (54-60 weeks)
1. Tuning – line 3ECTS as accumulationsystem
2 Ma
2 Ma 2 Ma 1 Ma 1 Ma
1 Ma 1 Ma 4 Ba 4 Ba 1 Ma
3 Ba 3 Ba 3 Ba 3 Ba 3 Ba
2 Ba 2 Ba 2 Ba 2 Ba 2 Ba
1 Ba 1 Ba 1 Ba 1 Ba 1 Ba
Entrance
1. Tuning – line 3ECTS as accumulationsystem
2Ma 2Ma 2Ma
1Ma 1Ma 1Ma 1Ma 1Ma
3Ba 3Ba 4Ba 4Ba 3Ba
2Ba 2Ba 3Ba 3Ba 2Ba
1Ba 1Ba 2Ba 2Ba 1Ba
entrance
1Ba 1Ba
1. Tuning – line 4Teaching and assessment
Teaching, learning and evaluation is task for HEI
Attention for transfer of general skills and competencies
Focus on competencies = attention to New methods of teaching New criteria for evaluation
2. ECTS in LLL
Designing a coherent system how toallocate credits in absolute and relativeterms allowing students to choose
variouspathways to a specified degree anddeveloping the institutions to offercustomised forms of study-programmesand not only institutional programmes
2. ECTS in LLL
Allocation of ECTS credits to all forms of LearningFor the recognition of ECTS credits independent of the form of learning based on their absolute value.By integrating them into the various pathways so that they will receive a relative value
3. Evaluation study load
1. Prospective method: difficult approach
2. Retrospective method: minimal approach
3.1. Prospective methodAd random:- All students of a study year
- 10 research groups at random- representative for gender/educational group
- Every group is registrating in the same time during 4 weeks in the academic year- 2 ‘normal’ weeks- 1 week in the study period - 1 week in exam period
- Recall in case of non-response (alternative week)
3.1. Prospective method
Form with a timetable and the following information:
1. Planned activity?2. Who?3. Place?4. Study materials?5. Study activity?6. Discipline?
3.1. Prospective method
- Advantages:- - stronger design - feasible for students
- high student participation: 60-65%- short time to registrate the information and data- difficult to manipulate- a lot of information given
3.1. Prospective method
- Disadvantages:
- complex procedure- too much information and data- a lot of procedures to evaluate it- high development costs
3.2. Retrospective method- After a semester or a year- For every course the following information:
- participation in the planned activities- preparation time for the planned activities- tasks- completing and structuring the courses- studying during the semester- preparation of exams- other study activities
3.2. Retrospective method
- Advantages:
- easy procedure - little information and data- fast analysis is possible- low cost
3.2.Retrospective method
- Disadvantages:
- student participation > 50%- frequently forms incorrect filled in- spontaneous reaction of the students- different memories- other factors