Inted 2010 ugc final
•Descargar como PPT, PDF•
0 recomendaciones•461 vistas
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Destacado
Similar a Inted 2010 ugc final
Similar a Inted 2010 ugc final (20)
Más de European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning
Más de European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning (20)
Inted 2010 ugc final
- 1. QUALITY ASSURANCE OF USER GENERATED CONTENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION Claudio Delrio University of Emilia Romagna (ITALY) Thomas Kretschmer Institute for Innovation in Learning (ILI/FIM) Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (GERMANY)
- 3. Explosion of User Generated Content Time person of the year 2008
- 4. Changing faces of e-Learning From Distribution… … to Collaboration and Reflection Transmissive Learning Expansive Learning Learning Management Systems Materials online Presentation Information E-Portfolios Weblogs Communication Collaboration WiKis Communities
- 6. Example 1
- 7. Example 2
- 12. Peers‘ / learners‘ side Peer creation Peer validation Editing Updating Enriching Benchmarking Peer reviews Peer reflections Peer learning Enabling processes Enabling tools Enabling policies Enabling policies
- 13. Methods of quality development for eLearning 2.0 (Ehlers 2009) Teachers Evaluations aimed at target group Peers, learning communities Social recommendation Teachers Assessment of e-portfolios Learners with the help of/ feedback by teachers Self-evaluation Quality assessment by Methods of quality development
- 14. The CONCEDE quality framework (www.concede.cc) Quality Procedures of LEARNERS (discussed through peer reviews, comments and rating) INSTITUTIONAL Quality Procedures (primarily represented by teachers) Dialogue & Negotiation
Notas del editor
- The CONCEDE multi-layered quality framework is described below. 1. A first level of quality assurance is based on users’ comments, reviews and ratings in relation to a learning experience taking place within one HE institution. This is a bottom up process, since users decide on whatever grounds they prefer whether a UGC is relevant to their needs. This can be done by letting users rate or comment on the UGC or describe how they have used it. The argument for such an approach would be that quality is not an inherent part of an UGC but contextual. It is only the specific learning situation that determines whether a UGC is useful or not, and therefore the user should be the judge. Moreover, in this way UGC is viewed through various “lenses”, such as professional societies, universities, school boards, publishers, colleagues and peers, and various “criteria”: most popular content, most linked, highest user ratings, and learning assessment rating (OECD, 2007, Giving knowledge for free: the emergence of open educational resources). Users reviews will be linked to their e-portfolios (linked in; social network…), so that peers will be able to contextualise their judgement and reviews. In this way it will be possible to link narrative elements of content creators to UGC: the assumption is that UGC must not be anonymous. A 2.0 environment will be prompted for hosting this process. 2. A second layer of quality assurance is based on institutional quality procedures undertaken by universities. Institutions most probably use internal quality checks and procedures before integrating UGC into learning provisions. Teachers are the main actors of this level. This could be considered a top down process. The third layer is dialogue and negotiations among the representatives of these two levels of quality assurance (i.e. teachers and learners) in order to reach a consensus which determine a synthesis of both layers described above. Dialogue and exchange of practices will take place both in presence and through the ad hoc learning environment