CONCEDE - Parallel Session on User Generated Content

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF USER GENERATED CONTENT

IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Thomas KretschmerInstitute for Innovation in Learning (ILI/FIM)

Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (GERMANY)

Marcelo MainaUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya (SPAIN)

Datum, Veranstaltung, Ort

© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008

Introduction

“…because quality is no objective characteristics of a learning resource or a service, but is constituted as a specific characteristic of a context which – in turn - is made up through the relation of the personal, organisational, social and structural interaction of the stakeholders involved.” Ehlers (2010)



Explosion of User Generated Content

Time person of the year 2008


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


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.


© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008

Examples: UGC

Discussion boards

Blogs/Micro-blogging

Wikis

Social networking sites

News Sites

Memories

Mobile Photos & Videos

Customer review sites

Experience or photo sharing sites

Any other website that offers the opportunity for the consumer to share their knowledge and familiarity with a product or experience


UGC in CONCEDE

In the context of this project, UGC can be defined as

• content that is created and shared freely by University students and/or teachers and

• which has not been through a process of formal peer review.


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 management

• Measuring quality of collaborative UGC is not easy due to the difficulty of seizing individual contributions

• The 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


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 learning

• Emancipation of qualifications and competences obtained in non-formal settings

Students will demand it!!


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

2009)

Activity, behaviour, communication

• Social interaction and networks; process of communication; activity, behaviour, communication

Process of learning

• Process more important than outcomes; control of activities

Structure of learning objects

• User satisfaction; standardization; tagging


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

Self assessment

• Empowerment of learners; supporting system; tools & guidelines

Peer reviews, external assessment and collaborative dialogue

• Polls, surveys; wisdom of the crowds

Challenges and problems

• Absence of standards; „garbage-in-garbage-out“-problem


Peer creation Peer validation

Editing

Updating

Enriching

Benchmarking

Peer reviews

Peer reflections

Peer learning

Enablingprocesses

Enablingtools Enabling

policies

Enablingpolicies

Peers‘ / learners‘ side


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


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


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)


Thank you for your attention!!

• [email protected]

• www.fim.uni-erlangen.de

• [email protected]

• www.uoc.edu

Education

CONCEDE - Parallel Session on User Generated Content