Classifying higher education institutions: why and how? EAIR Forum ‘Fighting for Harmony’, Vilnius 23-26 August 2009 Frans Kaiser Christiane Gaehtgens.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
N Mapping and Ranking: New higher education transparency tools Don F. Westerheijden, CHEPS, University of Twente, the Netherlands.
Advertisements

U-MULTIRANK Approach to m ultidimensional evaluation of HEI performance Getalo Elena lead expert, Development Programs Office, Tomsk Polytechnic University.
What does it mean to be an international institution? A view from the UK Professor Michael Worton Vice-Provost (Academic & International) UCL Strategic.
CHE and Coimbra Group 1 Ranking, Rating, Benchmarking... what is serving which purpose?
EAC HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY
Developing a Classification of Higher Education Institutions in Europe Frans van Vught May, 2006.
Building a European Classification of Higher Education Institutions Workshop ‘New challenges in higher education research and policy in Europe and in CR’,
Workshop Mapping Estonian Universities Frans Kaiser & Marike Faber, Tartu (Estonia) 21 March 2011.
U-Multirank – The implementation of a multidimensional international ranking IREG Forum on University Rankings – Methodologies under scrutiny Warsaw,
Mapping Diversity – The U-Multirank Approach to Rankings Gero Federkeil Workshop Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 29th June 2012.
LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMME & FORTHCOMING PROGRAMME.
Lene Oftedal, Ruard Wallis de Vries European Commission Oslo Bologna experts – challenges and expectations.
Multilingualism in teaching Mobile learning Community learning
1 UNICA WORKING GROUPS ON RESEARCH EVALUATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXCELLENCE Prof. Véronique Halloin, GS of Fund for Scientific Research.- FNRS Prof. Philippe.
Template methodology for multidimensional ranking: key provisions, approbation outcomes and potential for application Zavarykina L. (NTF) IREG Forum on.
The world’s first global, multi-dimensional, user-driven university* ranking (* includes all higher education institutions) Jordi Curell Director Higher.
"This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.This publication [communication] reflects the views only of the author, and the.
ACHEA Conference July 2002 ‘The Challenge Of Quality for the Higher Education Administrative Professional.’ LATEST TRENDS IN INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT OF.
Research Performance Ranking of Universities in Taiwan Prof. Ru-Jer Wang Department of Education, Graduate Institute of Educational Policy & Administration,
U-Multirank – The implementation of a multidimensional international ranking Higher Education Conference Rankings and the Visibility of Quality Outcomes.
Ranking effects upon students National Alliance of Student Organization in Romania (ANOSR) Member of European Students' Union (ESU) Academic cooperation.
QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT TOLERANCE BELGIAN RESULTS : 102 participants.
THE EDGE IN KNOWLEDGE Changes in the Carnegie Classifications: What They Mean for Colleges & Universities Perry Deess Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research.
What Can National Rankings Learn from the U-Multirank-Project ? Gero Federkeil, CHE, Germany IREG-Forum: National University Rankings on the.
Erasmus centralised actions and higher education policy Brussels, 23 rd January 2012 Vanessa Debiais-Sainton Endika Bengoetxea Higher Education; Erasmus.
Final Valorisation Seminar - 27 th June 2014 Guidelines on EA and LE as an Intergrative solution Jesus Boyano - FGUVA (SPAIN) GB2-GB2-LEO
The Bridge Method Iasi, Romania 1-7 November 2009.
Building a European Classification of Higher Education Institutions Ideas, Concepts, Goals Frans van Vught, Frans Kaiser & Don F. Westerheijden.
Strategy Statement for the University of Southern Denmark December 16, 2013.
QUALITY IN ACADEMIC LIFELONG LEARNING, THE CASE OF FINLAND EQUIPE PROJECT OUTCOMES Kari Seppälä Director, University of Turku, Centre for Extension Studies.
Assessing regional engagement and knowledge transfer – ranking or benchmarking? David Charles, EPRC, University of Strathclyde.
1. the GOODUEP project: findings EAIR Forum, Vilnius, August 2009 Paul Temple Centre for Higher Education Studies.
VALORI. Valorize the differences by training, inclusion and job paths The JOB FACILITATION TUTOR in the Job Center Patrizia Pogni Provincia di Livorno.
Legal Aspects Related to Brownfield Regenerations Prof. Maros Finka, M.arch., Ph.D. „This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.
3M activities: a social and economic need E3M-AL PROJECT - DEVELOPING THIRD MISSION ACTIVITIES IN ALBANIAN UNIVERSITIES Project No: TEMPUS ES-TEMPUS-SMHES.
Classifying European Institutions of Higher Education Phase II Frans van Vught.
Knowledge Transfer Programme: An Overview Marc Fleetham Director Business Solutions.
European Higher Education in Flux – challenges for the next decade - Lesley Wilson Secretary General, EUA EAIR, Vilnius, 24 August 2009.
1 LE-PEX In-company LEarning Processes EXpert Contract n. LLP_LDV/TOI/2007/IT/186 Kick-off meeting Centro Servizi Piccole e Medie Industrie 17,18 January.
THE 4 DIMENSIONS OF QUALITY IN THE ERASMUS EXPERIENCE
Lauritz B. Holm-Nielsen, Rector Benchmarking cooperation Feb THE UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS The University of Aarhus  Classical research based.
Institutional Diversity in European Higher Education - Different aspects and models Thomas Estermann Head of Unit Governance, Autonomy & Funding National.
P AVING THE WAY FOR JOINT ACTIONS IN THE D ANUBE R EGION : S HARING GOOD PRACTICES AND IDENTIFYING SYNERGIES IN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION SUPPORT 4th Annual.
PEER REVIEW IN THE EU SOCIAL INCLUSION PROCESS Thea Meinema NIZW International Centre Economic and Social Research Council, 26 November 2004.
UNESCO INSTITUTE for STATISTICS Reassessing international benchmarks for tertiary education systems Albert Motivans UNESCO Institute for Statistics Benchmarking.
Guidelines for Accessible Information Marcella Turner-Cmuchal.
InnoSkills – Innovation Skills for SMEs LLP-LDV/TOI/08/IT/481 This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication.
SPEAQ Workshop Practitioner-led quality assurance and enhancement This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication.
Digital Knowledge Setting May 8th, 2009 Barcelona CLAN – Continuous Learning for Adults with Needs LLP IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP Grant Agreement.
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot.
Co-funded by the European Union Ref. number: LLP FI-ERASMUS-ENW OI-Net The European Academic Network for Open Innovation ,
European Women Interactive Learning GRUNDTVIG Learning Partnership PROJECT ACTIVITIES REVISION With the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the.
DigiPlace4all: an online peer support community for digital skills.
Strengthening of Internationalisation in B&H Higher Education Analysis of current state in internationalization from the accreditation aspect of HEIs Maja.
Classification & Ranking in Higher Arts Education New EU developments and the role of ELIA.
Higher Education in a Global Context—Some Concerns
Legal Aspects Related to Brownfield Regeneration
On the feasibility of a new approach
A nationwide US student survey
Insert Institutional your logo here
WP1. Methodology and structure of questionnaires
U-Multirank – The first Multidimensional Global University Ranking
The UKPSF and the HEA Fellowship scheme
EuropeAid Co-operation Office
Transparency Initiatives European Higher Education
N Classification of Dutch and Flemish Higher Education Institutions.
Doctoral programmes in Europe
Quality in administration of higher education
Knowledge FOr Resilient soCiEty
Indicators&Criteria in External Quality Assessment
Presentation transcript:

Classifying higher education institutions: why and how? EAIR Forum ‘Fighting for Harmony’, Vilnius August 2009 Frans Kaiser Christiane Gaehtgens

 Diversity and transparency European Classification of HEIs  European classification of HEIs: dimensions and profiles  Implications and next steps

 The context of the project European Classification of HEIs  Description of the classification  Part two: the role of stakeholders in the process (Christiane)

 Diversity Diversity and transparency  Institutional /programme  Vertical /horizontal  Diversity is a strength…  …but it needs to be transparent

 Ranking  Classification Transparency instruments

Ranking

ranking

ranking

Ranking  1 overall score  Position on the list characterises HEI  Mainly research and prestige driven

 inclusive for all European HEIs  a posteriori information  multi-dimensional Classification Classification  non-hierarchical Transparency instruments

 Find the relevant characteristics  Organise the characteristics: six dimensions Classification

U-Map dimensions 1. Educational profile 2. Student profile 3. Research involvement 4. Involvement in knowledge transfer 5. International orientation 6. Regional orientation Classification

 Find the relevant characteristics  Organise the characteristics: six dimensions  Measure the characteristics: indicators Classification

Dimensions and indicators 1. Degree level focus 2. Subject areas covered 3. Program orientation focus Educational profile

Dimensions and indicators 1. Adult learners 2. Part-time students 3. Students in distance learning 4. Total enrolment (size) Student profile

Dimensions and indicators 1. Peer reviewed publications 2. PhD production 3. Expenditure on research 4. Time spent on research Research involvement

Dimensions and indicators 1. Patents 2. Licensing income 3. Start-up firms 4. Income from priv funded research contracts 5. Concerts, performances and exhibitions 6. Income from copyrighted products Involvement in knowledge transfer

Dimensions and indicators 1. Foreign degree seeking students 2. Exchange program students; incoming 3. Exchange program students; sent out 4. Income from international research programs 5. International academic staff 6. Importance of international sources of income International orientation

Dimensions and indicators 1. Importance of local/ regional sources of income 2. Academic staff time to community services 3. New entrants from the region 4. Graduates working in the region Regional orientation

Using the classification 1. On each dimension HEI is categorised in a descriptive category 2. User may select for each dimension the categories to be included 3. A selection of ‘comparable’ HEIs is presented Finding benchmark institutions

Using the classification Presenting an institutional profile

The data  Questionnaire based  Voluntary sample (67 HEIs)  Pre-filling to be explored Tentative results

What does a profile look like?

Results: tentative profiles

Case 54

Results: tentative profiles Case 27

Results: tentative profiles Case 66

Results: tentative profiles Case 59

Results: tentative profiles Case 57

Results: tentative profiles Case 55

Results: tentative profiles Case 18

A European Classification of Higher Education Institutions Thank you for your attention! Thank you for your attention! This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This presentation content reflects the views only of the author. The Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. The role of stakeholders in the process: Chistiane The role of stakeholders in the process: Chistiane

All profiles are equal but some are more equal then others Classification profiles and rankings Reflection

Reflection

Reflection Classification as a cradle in which ranking instruments are embedded