1. Sv Emrex Exchanging student information 2014-09-25 Per Zettervall

2. Sv Nordic forum for student information systems

3. Sv Was formed in 2006 Initially Norway, Sweden and Finland, Denmark joined later Participating organizations:  Sweden: Ladok consortium  Norway: FS, M-STAS  Finland: Oodi, CSC  Denmark: STADS Yearly meetings Nordforum, the start

4. Sv The first years: Mostly updates/information ”How does it work in your country?” ”Should we do something together? Maybe build a system?” Possibilities and obstacles Nordforum, what did we talk about

5. Sv Existing systems in different life cycle positions Financing, the stake holders focus on local problems Terminology problems- A course might be the same in every country but in details, things differ. It was all a bit of ”nice to have”, everyday problems took over Early obstacles and problems

6. Sv The project aimed at defining a common description of the respectively Basic Objects, like (but not limited to)  How to define persons and roles  How to define our programmes and courses  How to define relationships and process progress General Processes like (but not limited to)  Admissions  Study planning  Registration  Tuition (forming groups etc.)  Examination  Degrees Comparable terms/glossary A mapping project was initiated

7. Sv Mapping exercises

8. Sv A mapping scheme

9. Sv

12. Exchange between nordic countries: Country Incoming Outgoing Sweden 3158 3098 Norway 2303 3302 Finland 165+177 873 Denmark 44751092 (estimates) The total number of students going abroad to other countries: Sweden 25 000 for the school year 2011/12 Norway 14 616 for the year 2011 Denmark 9 865 for the school year 2009/10 Student exchange in the nordic countries

13. Sv 1.Student initiates transfer of credits from a source university. This is probably done in system provided by the receiving university. The mechanism uses Kalmar2-union to authorize transfer. Sender system must be programmed for this. The student hereby gives consent to sending the information. 2.Receiving university receives information from source university about credits for the students. 3.Receiving university precesses information and stores for later use. Branch to process B or go on. 4.Academic recognition takes place. Credits are now assessed, valued and accepted in relation to learners studies. 5.Recognized credits are stored as a part of the student record. 6.End for process A 7.Information could be sent to State Loan fund etc Process A

14. Sv 1-3 same as process A. 4. Academic recognition takes place. Credits are used for evaluation of learner for admission. This can be automated. 5. Admission is done and in case needed only the qualifying factor is stored in the student register. After this process item 4 in process A may be axecuted again. End process B Process B, admission

15. Sv Still need some kind of proof that it works technically Still needs funding Still need to convince stake holders to get funding Go on with a pre study So processes are defined, start building?

16. Sv Directive: Clarify development prerequisites and submit a proposal for system support etc Target: People responsible for Student information systems (boards, Directors etc) Purpose: Clarify if it is possible to build a system to support student information exchange between nordic countries Pre study

17. Sv In Sweden there are no problems with sending electronic information to other universities within the EES-area. In Norway, Denmark and Finland the laws are not quite that permitting but still not prohibiting this. There are some requirements, for instance that the student must be notified and also be able to see data transported. An agreement must be in place for each transfer between HEIs. The student is the initiating party of the transaction, thereby permitting it. Judicial prerequisites

18. Sv Secure – the security is very important since personal data is involved Simplicity for implementers – uptake of this system is dependent on the ease of integration Maintainability – the developed parts has to be easy to maintain Multi-platform support – regardless of the software platform at the local institution, an integration should be easy to create Guidelines for the architecture

19. Sv Need for development of each countrys student information system was listed Security handled through Terena certificates Infological standard= ELMO Results

20. Sv Creation of a working pilot between at least two universities. Completion of a full scale working system for at least three Nordic countries Next phase

21. Sv Application for EU funding Detailed technical architecture including communication protocols Development of generic Contact point (shared development) Development of mobility support service (shared and local development) Implementation of pilot Operation of Pilot Collection of experiences and plan for phase three. Decision point go on with phase three, depending on funding or not. The pilot phase in detail

22. Sv Emrex and the search for money

23. Sv Increase of availability, quality and reliability of information about student records for the use for the benefit of the student Reduction of work hours spent on each student in university administration Reduced amount of errors Extensions are possible By the way: EMREX = Field trial on the impact of enabling easy mobility on recognition of external studies A more formal project, benefits

24. Sv Components in the architecture – Contact point per country, containing Course/Credit Service Country-specific Course/Credit Service Implementation – Mobility support service, that enables selection of available contact points (ie countries) for the user Sends a query to selected contact point and forwards the user to a national identification authority login page from a session governed by contact point. Technichal architecture

25. Sv An example

26. Sv Focusing on putting together an application to EACEA/10/2014, Erasmus + EACEA/10/2014 Key Action 3: European policy experimentations in the fields of Education and Training, and Youth: trans- national cooperation for the implementation of innovative policies under the leadership of high-level public authorities Possibility to get 1,5 million euro. You have to provide 25% of the money yourself The latest

27. Sv Was sent in in May this year Poland and Italy joined in through University of Warsaw and KION Contains:  much formality  project description  budget  policy measure to be tested  target groups  european added value  experimentation method  partner information  outcomes Was approved in July The preproprosal

28. Sv A work in progress Deadline: October 2nd Even more bureaucracy But hopefully, we are getting there…. That was nothing, now the proposal

29. Sv Proposal Slowly but surely…

30. Sv Does it have ta take so long and will we ever be ready? Can others in Europe and the rest of the world use this? What are the obstacles:  Legal?  Technical?  Financial?  Business case? Questions?

31. Sv www.uhr.se Denna layout kan användas för UHR:s samarbetslogotyper/underlogotyper. Placera logotyperna enligt exemplen nedan.