1. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Italian Report WORK IN PROGRESS ACTIVITIES Second Transnational Meeting Madrid, 26th march 2004

2. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Survey DETC - Distance Education and Training Council (US) Accreditation process for Educational Institutes Intra-governmental Commission – Directive for e-learning quality Proposal of guidelines and Vademecum for e-learning quality projects in PA ASFOR – Association for business management training Proposal of an accreditation process for E-learning Masters

3. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Further Activities Focus on the ASFOR accrediting process Official national scenario Comparison of APs (synoptic table) First attempt to draft a model of Accrediting Systems Some specific criteria SIG-DLAE Accrediting System

4. Madrid, 26/3/2004 ASFOR Association for Business Management Training Experience of Italian accrediting process Specifically for on line/blended master programmes on Management and Business Administration On going project, still in phase of experimentation and testing Identification of specific Quality Criteria: traditional vs on line European trends and contributions: EQUIS project - EFMD

5. Madrid, 26/3/2004 ASFOR Experimentation Application Content:  Specialist Masters for Executives  Executive MBA (Master in Business Administration) Finality of the experimental phase: - a) to evaluate the validity and completeness of quality criteria - b) to test monitoring tools and indicators Polytechnic of MilanMaster MAF…

6. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Focus points of criteria I.Typology of master II.Admission procedures III.Didactic methodologies IV.Duration and articulation V.Project Team and Faculty VI.Tutorship and assistance VII.Evaluation process VIII.Technical and support equipment, standards IX.Customer satisfaction

7. Madrid, 26/3/2004 II. Admission Criteria Specialist Masters for Executives Graduated people with at least 3 years experience Executive MBA At least 70% of graduated people with 5 years experience III. Didactic Methodology Blended Learning and mix of activities proportion among the various methods mix of Active Learning methodology is strongly suggested :  Virtual Role playing scenario  Case Studies  Self -evaluation  Project works

8. Madrid, 26/3/2004 IV. Duration and articulation *** Project works, stages and self-learning are not included in didactic hours.

9. Madrid, 26/3/2004 V. Project Team and Faculty E-learning faculty has new roles and should be a staff composed by: TutorsDidactic coordinator Technology Help Desk assistantLMS/CLMS administrator TeachersContent experts Criteria on experience and turnover VI. Evaluation process explicit, coherent with objectives of courses different steps during the learning process student capabilities and knowledge LMS tracking Monitoring of different learning activities (quality assessments/scores..) Final examination on presence

10. Madrid, 26/3/2004 need of declare the involvement of tutors (hours; ratio tutor on number of students,etc.) Service Level Assistance :  8 working hours: time to replay to student requests/helps  4 working hours: time to assure technological assistance and Help Desk  16 working hours for teacher/expert consulting VII. Tutorship and assistance VIII. Technical and support equipment and standards LMS/CLMS: AICC, IMS and/or SCORM compliant Support equipment for collaborative learning

11. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Customer satisfaction must be pursued by: mapping different methodologies promoting blended learning models measuring Learning Objects guaranteeing tutorship by a well defined scheduling assistance services. Customer satisfaction must be evaluated by questionnaires. Key note: student drop out has never to be more than 20% of the enrolled people. IX. Customer Satisfaction

12. Madrid, 26/3/2004 180 creditsFirst Level (Bachelor) 120 creditsSecond Level(Master) ………3 yearsPhD Following 1 st level Master- not master Following 2 nd level The University Credit System 1 credit = 25 hours (conventional) All the University are aligned with the credit system

13. Madrid, 26/3/2004 a)The Education & ICT Ministries Moratti – Stanca Law The Official Scenario b)The Italian Confederation of Deans (CRUI) CampusOne project c)Others sie-l Italian Society of e-learning

14. Madrid, 26/3/2004 ANEE Survey 2002/2003 Not so big 6 universities on 77 are really developing e-L More universities produce “web enhanced courses” The Market of University in e-learning

15. Madrid, 26/3/2004 7 persons commission since summer 2003 Only 1 new university at the moment Criteria: Technological (platform, LO,…) A min. threshold for teachers/tutors Didactical (evaluation – exams, services, customer satisfaction,..) Polytechnic is accredited because it was the first in Italy (before the law) Moratti – Stanca Law

16. Madrid, 26/3/2004 CdL – IoL (On line Degree in Computer Science) was accredited in December 2003 4 steps (+ step zero) 0.Polytechnic decides courses to be available 1.CoampusOne analyses document and web site 2.The managing structure evaluates itself 3.On-sit Visit (not by surprise): 2 days-long meeting; face-to-face interviews with students/teachers/tutors/managers/employees 4.Recommendations 5.(Future checks) CRUI project - CampusOne

17. Madrid, 26/3/2004 The 8 best practices in Virtual university elected by EU through PSRamboll survey A general Accreditation The e-L model of Polytechnic of Milan (many projects: IoL; Matser NetBA; MathOnLine)

18. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Founder Associates: Polytechnic of Milan (A.Colorni) University of Florence (A. Calvani) University of Milano-Bicocca(G. Martinotti) ITD-CNR of Genova(G. Olimpo) 200 Members Web site: www.sie-l.itwww.sie-l.it SIe-L Societ à Italiana di e-learning No profit association It aims at favouring the development of e-learning in Italy, above all, at University, post-university and high-school level

19. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Comparison of APs: DETC key factors Preparat.Conclusion Examination ApplicationRenewal DETC Preliminary Examination SER Submit SER evaluation Examiner’s Report Council Examination More articulated process of analysis Many steps for comments and feedbacks (learning process) Annual Handbook available on line Possibility to appeal to the decision before the final notification

20. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Comparison of APs: ASFOR key factors Preparat.Conclusion Examination ApplicationRenewal Flexible to specific situation Encouraging system to accreditation ASFOR First Level Contitioned Accreditation Second Level Full Accreditation

21. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Matrix of Accreditation Systems Level Educational path/product Approach Institution Single product Product Process Presence Blended e-L ODL PA ASFOR DETC

22. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Process and product approach Process Product Quality in activities and procedures (Life Cycle: Concept, Design, Implementation, Release) Quality in components and functions (materials, services, etc.) Dynamic and systemic vision of the product: Integration with the organisational context Static vision of the product: risk of not considering the context where the product works Detailed on specifities as well as on specific key factors in educational products Integrated approach (i.e. EQO)

23. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Common Criteria Integration of various standards (EQO, ODL QC, ….) I. Pre-analysis of student requirements II. Planning HR involved in learning activities III. Attention to learner motivation IV. Attention to content model of learning material and assessment V. Accurancy of Students Support VI. Pubblicity and marketing Main focus: PEDAGOGICAL CRITERIA

24. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Accessibility (1/3) ACCESSIBILITY : “Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with disability thanks to specific configurations or/and supporting technologies” Disability: not only the blinds, but also who sees few, the elderly people, etc. USABILITY : “Effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which users can reach specific targets in specific contexts” [ ISO 9241, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual displays ]

25. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Accessibility (2/3) LAW 9th January 2004, n.4: “Arrangements for favouring the access of disabled people to information tools” (GU n.13, 17th January 2004)  Addressed to: oPublic Administration (Governamental offices, Healthcare Institute, schools and University,..) o Educational Institution, providing services to PA  Objective: consistency of web sites, didactical tools and educational materials with the new requirements.  References: W3C http://www.w3c.it/wai/http://www.w3c.it/wai/ European arrangementhttp://www.euroaccessibility.org/http://www.euroaccessibility.org/

26. Madrid, 26/3/2004 Accessibility (3/3)  By 9th april 2004: criteria and general operative and organisational principles for accessibility Modalities to apply for the evaluation; costs; trademark or logo  Adjustment of institution within 12 months since May 2005  By 9th may 2004: Guidelines: technical requirements and levels of accessibility Technical methodologies for evaluating the accessibility

27. Madrid, 26/3/2004 SIG-DLAE Accrediting System  e-learning and blended: OK  National vs European Accrediting System (AS) Need of not overlapping existing national systems  European AS for accrediting the quality of National systems regarding to international criteria accepted by EU (MetaSystem of Accreditation)  European AS for specific content application not yet considered by national systems  …?

28. Madrid, 26/3/2004 SIG-DLAE Accrediting System  European Master of Science vs whole Higher Education paths Definition of Master of Science First Level Degree (Bachelor) 3 Years First Level Masters/Courses Second Level Degree (Master) 2 Years Second Level Masters/Courses

29. Madrid, 26/3/2004 SIG-DLAE Accrediting System  Accrediting Institutions vs Programs Trends for PA: Accreditation of Institutions ASFOR system:Accreditation of Programs It also depends on: What integration with existing national systems What level of accreditation (Meta AS,…) Complexity of the process to be sustained