5th Global Conference
Thursday 8th May - Saturday 10th May 2008
Budapest, Hungary
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Session 10: Education’s Toolbox
Chair: Dale Kirby
Innovation and its Role in University Education
David Seth Preston
School of Computing and Technology,
University of East London,
London, United Kingdom
No abstract is presently available
User Requirements Analysis for use of Mobile Phones in Learning and Teaching
Chrisina Draganova & Johannes Arreymbi
School of Computing and Technology,
University of East London, London, United Kingdom
In this study we investigate the requirements of students and lecturers from the School of Computing and Technology at University of East London for a system that uses mobile phones to support learning and teaching. We consider in particular those requirements that are related to supporting classroom interaction, student group work and module administration. We offer an analysis model of these requirements that can be further used for the design and implementation of the system.
The Indicators and the Mission of Higher Education: What is the Gap?
Rita Fornari
University of Rome, Sapienza, Roma, Italy
Within the scenario of changes involving the university, the social definition of the its role has become increasingly problematic. Paradoxically, however, in spite of the need to redefine its mission, debate on the identity of the institutions of higher education has moved into the background compared with the issue of the assessment. This shift in focus, if not a monopoly of attention should be attributed above all to the relevance of the logic of New Public Management in the field of knowledge. This implies greater competition between the segments of the disciplines, the emphasis on the autonomy of institutions, strengthening the choice of families and the introduction of various elements of evaluation centered on outputs, defined upon the quantitative and qualitative standards previously established.
The universities must meet quality criteria, in line with the principles of transparency and accountability. This demand has led to multiplication and specialization of the practices, methodologies and actors of evaluation at different levels of the system. Among the instruments adopted, particular attention should be placed on indicators and, in particular, on the process of operationalization by which they emerge. This process is developed on pre-existing set of meanings and values attributed by the actors to the object of evaluation and allows to individuate the assumptions (even implicit) and the logics of the actors. The analysis of the social construction of indicators allows to clarify the gap between the mission and objects assessment and thus develop both an adequate system of quality assurance and a “project for the university” that includes all the stakeholder needs and interests and overcome a strategy of reform characterized by the achievement of a goal at once.