Inted 2010 ugc final

Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)QUALITY ASSURANCE OF USER GENERATED CONTENT

IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Claudio DelrioUniversity of Emilia Romagna (ITALY)

Thomas KretschmerInstitute for Innovation in Learning (ILI/FIM)

Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (GERMANY)

INTED, 08/09 March 2010, Valencia

© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008

Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Explosion of User Generated Content

Time person of the year 2008



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Changing faces of e-Learning

From Distribution… Learning Management Systems

Materials online

PresentationInformation

…to Collaboration and Reflection

E-PortfoliosWeblogs

Communication Collaboration

WiKisCommunities

Transmissive Learning

Expansive Learning



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

The scope

The “explosion” of user generated content (UGC) takes place at such a magnitude and extent which go beyond definitory boundaries. However, some common traits can be identified (Adaptation from OECD study on the Participative Web: User Generated Content, 2008):

Publication and sharing: be it on a publicly accessible website, a collaborative project work, or on a page on a social networking site accessible to a selected group of people Creative effort: often also has a collaborative element to it, as is the case with websites which users can edit collaboratively. Yet the minimum amount of creative effort is hard to define and depends on the context. Creation outside professional contexts: but possibility of feedback into organisational settings. It often does not have an institutional or a commercial market context. Motivating factors include: connecting with peers, achieving a certain level of fame, notoriety, or prestige, and the desire to express oneself.

Or:“UGC is content produced by the end user” (Wikipedia)



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Example 1



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Example 2



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Universities and UGC (1)

There are several inhibiting factors both to the introduction of UGC into higher education and the related development of quality frameworks. Some of them are:

Lack of time, skills and reward system for teachers and still a significant share of learners Reluctance of many teachers to use or create UGC, since they challenge the concept of “authority”Ensuring quality of UGC is sometimes perceived as an additional burden instead of a key asset for learning experiences’ enrichment and knowledge managementMeasuring quality of collaborative UGC is not easy due to the difficulty of seizing individual contributionsThe use of UGC for learning is often considered a supplement to traditional pedagogic strategies instead of vehicle of pedagogic and organisational innovation. insufficient involvement of stakeholders, policy makers and users in the dialogue on quality into higher education



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Universities and UGC (2)

Enhancing quality of UGC and ultimately fostering its acceptance into teaching

and learning practice is fundamental for universities in their modernisation

agenda.

European Qualifications Framework: Emphasis on the recognition of informal and non-formal learningEmancipation of qualifications and competences obtained in non-formal settings

Students will demand it!!



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

What is the object of quality assessment in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches ? (QMPP, 2009)

Activity, behaviour, communicationSocial interaction and networks; process of communication; activity, behaviour, communication

Process of learningProcess more important than outcomes; control of activities

Structure of learning objectsUser satisfaction; standardization; tagging



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

What are methods and instruments to assess/develop quality in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches? (QMPP, 2009)

Self assessmentEmpowerment of learners; supporting system; tools & guidelines

Peer reviews, external assessment and collaborative dialogue

Polls, surveys; wisdom of the crowds

Challenges and problemsAbsence of standards; „garbage-in-garbage-out“-problem



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Peer creation Peer validation

Editing

Updating

Enriching

Benchmarking

Peer reviews

Peer reflections

Peer learning

Enablingprocesses

Enablingtools Enabling

policies

Enablingpolicies

Peers‘ / learners‘ side



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Methods of quality development for eLearning 2.0 (Ehlers 2009)

Methods of quality development

Quality assessment

by

Self-evaluation Learners with the

help of/ feedback by teachers

Assessment of e-portfolios

Teachers

Social recommendation

Peers, learning communities

Evaluations aimed at target group

Teachers



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

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



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Partners

Institut für Lern-Innovation (ILI) - Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)

European Federation for Quality in eLearning - EFQUEL (BE)

HCI Productions Oy (SU)

Budapest University of Technology and Economics – BME (HU)

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya - UOC (ES)

University of Plymouth (UK)

Portuguese Catholic University (PT)

MENON Network EEIG (BE)



Institut fürLern-

Innovation(FIM

NeuesLernen)

Thank you for your attention!!

[email protected]

www.fim.uni-erlangen.de

www.efquel.org

Skype: kre.fim

SecondLife: Hildegard Morpork

Follow-up at the:

EFQUEL Innovation Forum

Sept. 8-10, Lisbon (Portugal)

Documents

Inted 2010 ugc final