1 / 28

University-wide development of education at Lund University

University-wide development of education at Lund University. EQ11 . Forward looking. Lund University’s own long-term quality assurance work To bring together and renew the University’s strategic development within education Watchwords: simple, clear, useful

nigel
Download Presentation

University-wide development of education at Lund University

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. University-wide development of education at Lund University

  2. EQ11 • Forward looking. Lund University’s own long-term quality assurance work • To bring together and renew the University’s strategic development within education • Watchwords: simple, clear, useful • Separatefrom but congruent with the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education’s upcoming evaluation • Emphasis on the faculty level (Faculty Management) but with a university-wide perspective and generalisability as the main principle • The quality indicators are assessed using examples from course level and a variety of teaching situations • It should be possible to apply the results in core activities

  3. EQ11 – Long-term effects High quality of education 5. Commitment Continual development 4. Implementation 3. Acceptance Perseverance and enjoyment 2. Understanding/ insight Feedback and support Acceptance of aims and conditions 1. Introduction/ presentation Significance? Consequences? Project, goals and expectations

  4. EQ11 is to answer the question: How can we raise the level of awareness of how we develop our programmes and courses, in order to select ways that in all likelihood will improve quality?

  5. EQ11 • First-cycle education • Second-cycle education • Third-cycle education • Professional development (lifelong learning) All education

  6. EQ11 • Focus on reseach-based education processes • Common (joint) indicators for successful development, but weighted differently • The thesis or degree project provides ties between education in the second cycle and the third cycle • Third-cycle education includes research and examination

  7. Research-based education • Education is provided in an environment characterised by research/artistic development • Scholarly attitudes are obvious in both research and teaching • Students apply research-based processes to learning and acquire a scholarly attitude to lifelong learning • Based on scholarly evidence and proven experience

  8. Research-based Research-tutored Undertaking research and inquiry Engaging in research discussions Students are participants Emphasis on research processes and problems Emphasis on research content Research-led Research-oriented Developing research and inquiry skills and techniques Learning about current research in the discipline Students are often an audience

  9. Learning (both within and outside the curriculum) Teaching Intended learning outcomes Examination assignments Evaluation

  10. The relationshipbetweenassessment and facets of the curriculum (alignment) - the student’sperspective

  11. EQ11. LU’s strategic plan transformed into success factors LU/Faculty definitions How is quality to be achieved in first-, second- and third-cycle studies and lifelong learning? Quality Success factors in strong education environments Quality Assurance Teaching/Leadership Outcomes Scholarship Management Alignment Internationalisation Cross-boundary International cooperation Interaction with the community Cross-boundary Interprofessional Innovation

  12. Quality Indicators Success factor Indicator Outcomes Alignment • Course evaluations, including students’ results in examinations • Independent degree projects • Choice of methods for teaching and examination. In-depth learning. Learning environment • Decision making structures and resource allocation • Student cooperation

  13. Success factor Indicator • Decision making structures and resource allocation • Student cooperation • Assessment of teaching qualifications • Links to research in education, including educational research/ development Management Scholarship

  14. Academic scholarship (Boyer) Teaching Focus on students’ learning Discovery New knowledge (research) Application Professional activities and other applications Integration Gather/use/communicate knowledge from different fields/sources An academic organisation shall demonstrate scholarship in all its activities.

  15. Scholarship in teaching • Methods • Dissemination • Critical analysis and re-evaluation • Development over time • Focus on the results of students’ learning

  16. Success factor Indicator • Students’ ability to participate in international contexts • Teaching staff mobility • Proportion of student with international studies • Internationalisation at home • Interprofessional teaching and learning • Choice of methods for teaching and examination. In-depth learning • ICT as support for learning and communication in professional practice • Societal interaction. Education • for future needs Internationalisation Cross-boundary activities Innovation

  17. EQ11 - Development at faculty level • The faculties’ definition of the concept of quality and its relation to the success factors. • The faculties define three particularly important indicators and describe the long-term development work. These indicators may fall under the university-wide indicators or may be other, individually chosen indicators. Contrast three strong education processes with three areas for development. • The faculties can highlight their work using the university-wide indicators, taking examples from syllabi and examination assignments.

  18. EQ11 – Project delivery External advisors Steering committee Around 10 people Appointed by the Pro Vice-Chancellor 16 people Chair of the panel: Judyth Sachs The faculties propose two experts each, one of whom is appointed Representatives of the universities of Uppsala and Gothenburg and Karolinska Institutet Student representatives

  19. EQ11 - Project delivery Members of the steering committee • Eva Åkesson, Pro Vice-Chancellor. Chair • Kristina Eneroth, Reader, Vice-Dean, School of Economics and Management. Vice Chair • Magnus Fontes, Reader, Head of Centre for Mathematical Sciences • Ylva Hofvander Trulsson, lecturer/PhD student, Malmö Academy of Music • Malin Irhammar, Director, Centre for Educational Development • Kristina Josefson, Director, Planning and Evaluation • Ingalill Rahm Hallberg, Professor, Assistant Vice-Chancellor • Sanimir Resic, Reader, Head of Centre for Language and Literature • Anita Sjölander, Professor, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Malmö • Jenny Pobiega, Lund University Student Unions Association (LUS) • Christian Stråhlman, Lund University Student Unions Association (LUS) • Jan Aldoson, Lund University representative for ST - the Union of Civil Servants • Anneli Carlsson, Lund University representative for the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations

  20. EQ11 - Project delivery Reference groups Working groups • LU Management Group • Development Council • Council for Research Education • Policy group for internationalisation • Council of Deans • Students’ unions • External representatives from universities of Uppsala and Gothenburg, Karolinska Institutet, Swedish National Agency for HE (HSV), Association of Swedish HE (SUHF) • Compilation/analysis of previously reported quality assurance work. What has happened? • Production of self-evaluation questionnaire • Library group. Publications and reports concerning education research, development and teaching • Indicators and criteria for third-cycle education. Council for Research Education and Uppsala University • Criteria for evaluation of the quality indicators. Faculty of Engineering Academic Development Unit

  21. Examples of questions in the self-reflection (1) Area VI. Scholarship S.1.1. Excellence in teaching should be recognised Strongly disagree Strongly agree To what degree has this been accomplished in your courses and programmes? Not at all Completely If variable, name one course with high and one with low fulfilment. Provide links to the course syllabi. Comments on relevance………………………………………

  22. Examples of questions in the self-reflection (2) Area VI. Scholarship S.2. Open, strategic questions Provide examples from plans, assessments and/or minutes from autumn semester 2010 or spring semester 2011 to support all your answers. S.2.1. Academic scholarship traditionally includes research, teaching, integration and application, for example clinical work for health care academics, collaboration with industry, commercial patents etc. Do you consider your faculty to be scholarly in all activities you are involved in? If not – why not and what do you lack?

  23. Examples of questions in the self-reflection (3) Area VI. Scholarship 100 % Discovery (Research) Teaching Blue Red Integration Integration Application Green Yellow S.3. Mark the position/opinion of your faculty on the figure 0 % Use the blocks to build a pillar that you consider represents the extent of scholarship at your faculty. The height of each block should represent the relative proportion of each academic activity in your overall competence. 100% represents your total competence. Comments:

  24. Examples of questions in the self-reflection (4) Area VI. Scholarship S.4. Long-term development of “Scholarship” Describe and characterise the long-term development work relating to scholarship. Illustrate using the selected quality indicators in the project plan. Provide your answer in the form of 3 - 5 bullet points for each quality indicator.

  25. EQ11 - Project delivery Cooperating projects • Assessment project • Degree projects • Master’s programmes • Action plan for quality assurance work in first-, second- and third-cycle education • Internationalisation Policy • VETA (Virtual Evaluation Tool for Academia) • Student satisfaction (barometer) and alumni surveys • Campus Development Plan • Orpheus and other international projects • International Office • Corporate Communications

  26. EQ11 - Timetable (1) 2010 Project delivery phase May Nov. Reports from working groups Vice-Chancellor’s decision Groups appointed* Self-reflection begins General view of each faculty, translation of documents and information on websites into English 2-7 May 2011 Sept Visit of evaluation panel Report Self-reflection * Steering committee, reference group, working groups, international and national group of external advisors

  27. EQ11 - Timetable (2) Implementation phase 2011 autumn Seminars, conferences, workshops Follow-up, execution Continued cooperation with the universities of Uppsala and Gothenburg and Karolinska Institutet. Some projects continue 2012 International conference (U21?) Discussions, implementation, dissemination Evaluationphase 2013 Follow-up/evaluation. What has happened?

  28. EQ11 - Contacts Home page: http://www5.lu.se/o.o.i.s/4311 or go to the Lund University websitehttp://www.lu.se SelectEnglish. Search for EQ11 Project manager: Professor Stefan Lindgren Stefan.Lindgren@med.lu.se Project coordinator: Eva.Lindgren@rektor.lu.se

More Related