Currently, various higher education (HE) institutes develop flexible curricula for various reasons, including promoting accessibility of HE, the societal need for more self-regulated professionals who engage in life-long learning, and the desire to increase motivation of students. Increasing flexibility in curricula allows students to choose for example what they learn, when they learn, how they learn, where they learn, and/or with whom. However, HE institutes raise the question of what preferences and needs different stakeholders have with regard to flexibility, so that suitable choices can be made in the design of policies, curricula, and student support programs. In this workshop, we focus on student preferences and share recent insights from research on HE students' preferences regarding flexible education. Moreover, we use participants’ expertise to identify new (research) questions to further explore what students’ needs imply for several domains, namely curriculum-design, student support that is provided by educators/staff, policy, management, and the professional field. Firstly, a conceptual framework on flexible education and student’s preferences will be presented. Secondly, participants reflect in groups on student personas. Then, discussion groups have a Delphi-based discussion to collect new ideas for research. Finally, participants share the outcomes on a ‘willing wall’ and a ‘wailing wall’.
MULTIFILE
The advantages and drawbacks of components of flexible assessment have been studied mostly from the standpoint of students and, to a lesser extent, teachers. A gap persists in understanding the collective perspectives of teachers and students concerning flexible assessment. This study aimed to explore experiences and perspectives of students and teachers regarding flexible assessment within the specific context of nursing education. Seven focus groups comprised four sessions with teachers and three with students, each involving 5-8 participants. Results showed that students and teachers have a predominantly positive perspective towards flexible assessment. They acknowledge the opportunities that flexible assessment provides for diverse forms to present evidence. However, concerns were raised regarding the design of flexible assessments, issues of fairness in rating evidence, and the understanding among teachers and students regarding the assessment processes. Additionally, discussions focused on the perceived benefit of flexible assessments, particularly concerning the time investment required for their implementation and evaluation. In conclusion, the success of flexible assessments is contingent on the careful consideration of its design, ensuring equitable evaluation of evidence, and fostering comprehensive understanding among both teachers and students. Recognizing potential disparities in views of students and teachers offers valuable insights into the effectiveness of flexible assessment. Achieving a balance between the flexibility of assessment formats, aligned forms of evidence, and an appropriate rating methodology is crucial for effective implementation.
DOCUMENT
In flexible education, recommender systems that support course selection, are considered a viable means to help students in making informed course selections, especially where curricula offer greater flexibility. However, these recommender systems present both potential benefits and looming risks, such as overdependence on technology, biased recommendations, and privacy issues. User control mechanisms in recommender interfaces (or algorithmic affordances) might offer options to address those risks, but they have not been systematically studied yet. This paper presents the outcomes of a design session conducted during the INTERACT23 workshop on Algorithmic Affordances in Recommender Interfaces. This design session yielded insights in how the design of an interface, and specifically the algorithmic affordances in these interfaces, may address the ethical risks and dilemmas of using a recommender in such an impactful context by potentially vulnerable users. Through design and reflection, we discovered a host of design ideas for the interface of a flexible education interface, that can serve as conversation starters for practitioners implementing flexible education. More research is needed to explore these design directions and to gain insights on how they can help to approximate more ethically operating recommender systems.
LINK
Innovation is crucial for higher education to ensure high-quality curricula that address the changing needs of students, labor markets, and society as a whole. Substantial amounts of resources and enthusiasm are devoted to innovations, but often they do not yield the desired changes. This may be due to unworkable goals, too much complexity, and a lack of resources to institutionalize the innovation. In many cases, innovations end up being less sustainable than expected or hoped for. In the long term, the disappointing revenues of innovations hamper the ability of higher education to remain future proof. Against the background of this need to increase the success of educational innovations, our colleague Klaartje van Genugten has explored the literature on innovations to reveal mechanisms that contribute to the sustainability of innovations. Her findings are synthesized in this report. They are particularly meaningful for directors of education programs, curriculum committees, educational consultants, and policy makers, who are generally in charge of defining the scope and set up of innovations. Her report offers a comprehensive view and provides food for thought on how we can strive for future-proof and sustainable innovations. I therefore recommend reading this report.
DOCUMENT
Learning objects are bits of learning content. They may be reused 'as is' (simple reuse) or first be adapted to a learner's particular needs (flexible reuse). Reuse matters because it lowers the development costs of learning objects, flexible reuse matters because it allows one to address learners' needs in an affordable way. Flexible reuse is particularly important in the knowledge economy, where learners not only have very spefic demands but often also need to pay for their own further education. The technical problems to simple and flexible are rapidly being resolved in various learning technology standardisation bodies. This may suggest that a learning object economy, in which learning objects are freely exchanged, updated and adapted, is about to emerge. Such a belief, however, ignores the significant psychological, social and organizational barriers to reuse that still abound. An inventory of these problems is made and possible ways to overcome them are discussed.
DOCUMENT
Dit Trendrapport Open Education 2014 beschrijft de trends op het gebied van open education in binnen- en buitenland, geschreven vanuit de context van het Nederlandse hoger onderwijs. Dat gebeurt aan de hand van acht artikelen van Nederlandse experts op het gebied van open en online onderwijs en acht korte intermezzo’s.
DOCUMENT
One of the goals of this research is to arrive at an implementation of a CAN-bus that can be used for lab exercises in regular student courses. In this paper, an overview is given of our basic ideas concerning the CAN concept and its application to the control of a manufacturing system. This system consists of two robots, a milling machine and some transportation means. In this system, every workstation will have its own CAN controller. The concept consists of a specially designed hardware structure, embedded software for the protocol and initialisation and a high level production environment, that makes it possible to configure a production system in an easy way.
DOCUMENT
Industrial Design Engineering [Open] Innovation (IDE) is a 3-year, English taught, VWO entry-level, undergraduate programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS). The IDE curriculum focuses on the fuzzy front end of (open) innovation, sustainable development, and impact in the implementation phase of product-service design. The work field of Industrial Design Engineering and Open Innovation, like many other domains, is growing increasingly more complex (Bogers, Zobel, Afuah, Almirall, Brunswicker, Dahlander, Frederiksen, Gawer, & Gruber, 2017). Not only have the roles of designers changed considerably in the last decades, they continue to do so at increasing speed. Therefore, industrial design engineering students need different and perhaps more competencies as young professionals in order to deal with this new complexity. Moreover, in our transitional society, lifelong learning takes a central position (Reekers, 2017). Students need to give their learning path direction autonomously, in accordance with their talents and interests. IDE’s Quality & Curriculum Committee (QCC) realized in 2015 there is too much new knowledge to address in a 3-year programme. Instead, IDE students need to learn how to become temporary experts in an array of topics, depending on the characteristics of each new project they do (see Textbox 1). The QCC also concluded that more than just incremental changes to the current curriculum were needed; thus, the idea for a flexible, choice-based semester approach in the curriculum was born: ‘Curriculum M’ (Modular). A co-creational approach was applied, in which teaching staff, students, alumni, prospective students, industry (including the (international) social profit sector), and educational advisors collaborated to develop a curriculum that would allow students to become not just T-shaped (wide basis, one expertise) professionals, but U- or W-shaped professionals, with strong links to other disciplines.
DOCUMENT
In a lifelong learning society students need to deal with the responsibility to give their learning path direction, find motivation, and prove what they have learned. What pedagogics and what kind of didactic structure do you need to bring this about in higher education? What does it mean for the professionality of the teaching staff, the organization of the teams, and the needed facilities? A co-creational approach is applied in redesigning the curriculum of the undergraduate programme Industrial Design Engineering [Open] Innovator, which offers multidisciplinary projects in authentic learning environments, and caters for the professional profiling needs of our future students. Teaching staff, students, alumni, future students, industry (including the social profit sector), and educational scientists collaborate towards the flexible, integrated and choice-based 'Project M(odular) Curriculum'. This paper describes the arguments for the choices made from an educational point of view, taking the twelve CDIO standards and CDIO syllabus as a blue print. In certain standards, project M goes beyond the framework to fulfil the needs of stakeholders, take the newest useful (engineering) educational research outcomes into account, and come to a curriculum design that will be adaptable and versatile enough to hold value for the coming ten years at least. Based on the experiences of Project M, considerations on refining CDIO standards 5, 8, 11 and 12 are presented in the discussion, together with a rationale to add a rubric score to the CDIO self-evaluation, and the discussion of minor gaps in the CDIO syllabus. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellen-sjoer-06506a2/
DOCUMENT
