M odelling A dvice and S upport S ervices to I ntegrate the V irtual component in H igher E ducation Isabel Pérez

1. Modelling Advice and Support Servicesto Integratethe Virtual componentin Higher Education Isabel Pérez, Universidad de Granada

2. Introduction • Basis and objectives of the project • The anticipated results and development of the project • The MASSIVE peer review model • Intermediate conclusions

3. Iniciatives • The Lisbon Strategy an eLearning in Higher Education • The Bologna process and the promotion of quality • Integration of ICT in European Universities not homogenous

4. Progress in eLearning • In most universities the result has been a transference of traditional pedagogy into the computer environment • Only a minor number of universities use ICT to design programmes based on a new methodology

5. University strategies to integrate virtual components Virtual Campus Evolution of University Libraries IPR Management Training and teachers’ support Students’ support Design of online courses 6 Areas

6. Project Partners • UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA (ES)– PROJECT COORDINATOR • UNIVERSIDAD DE BARCELONA (ES) • FIM NEW LEARNING (DE) • BUDAPEST MÜSZAKI GAZDASÁGTUDOMÁNYI EGYETM (HU) • UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN (NO) • MALTS - UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH (UK) • EUROPACE (BE) • SCIENTER ESPAÑA (ES) • SCIENTER (IT) • SOCIEDAD DIGITAL DE AUTORES Y EDITORES, SGAE (ES) • TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE (UK)

7. MASSIVE Approach • Objetive: to design a model of mutual support services for European traditional Universities to successfully implement the virtual component of teaching • Strategy: “peer review”

8. Anticipated Results • Desk research reports in the 6 areas proposed. • Criteria and toolsto identify good practices. • Comparative report on strategies, services and transferable elements • Peer review methodologyto assess the implementation of eLearning

9. Peer Review • Widely used to introduce new techniques and to improve the educational offer by integrating correctives among colleagues • It allows the involved institutions to take part in a dialogue between both sides as colleagues do • The institution goes through a process of reflection upon their weaknesses and strengths

10. Peer Review • Collaborative:improving relations between peers • Open:sharing the results without any restrictive or secret statements • Multidimensional y triangular:incorporating a set of data using a wide range of sources • Ethical:it does not endanger the relations between the institution and their students • Formative:it implies an element of continuous improvement process

11. Development and results • Researchin depth of the 6 areas • Recommendations to develop the case of studies • Methodological handbookas a supporting tool to implement the peer review process

12. Peer review process

13. Peer review process • Assessing the services and models of the universities taking part in the pilot. Non-commercial consultancy service proposed:

14. Pilot Experiences Aim • To provide a methodological framework for the developed tools, as a non-commercial service that allows the comparison of the integration of ICT in the 6 proposed areas

15. Peer Review Process • Documents and data collection: • Documents, files, reports, etc. • Interviews (face to face, telephone, focus group, etc.) • Observation (users, platforms, etc.) • Peer review team: • Work package leader • 2 visiting partners • 1 host partner

16. Partial conclusions • Essential topic: University strategies to integrate ICT in education • Intellectual property rights are related to the areas of University Libraries and Design of online courses • The indicators identified in the area of IPR not very clear • The areas of Training and teachers’ support and Students’ support are closely related • The need of flexibility in applying methodology & tools

17. http://www.massive-project.org/