The use of Profiles and Meta Profiles in degree programmes

Tamaño: px

Comenzar la demostración a partir de la página:

Download "The use of Profiles and Meta Profiles in degree programmes"

María Victoria Cano Ruiz
hace 6 años
Vistas:

2 The use of Profiles and Meta Profiles in degree programmes Brussels, 21 November 2012 Julia González, University of Deusto

3 Outline of the presentation Historical landmarks : the start Further widening and deepening Present work Future developments

4 Outline of the presentation Historical landmarks: the start Further widening and deepening Present innovations Future developments

5 Historical landmarks: the start In the year 2000 a group of over one hundred European academics felt the need to address a challenge and decided to work together to create an approch to degree development: design and delivery

6 Historical landmarks: the start In the year 2000 a group of over one hundred European academics felt the need to address a challenge and decided to work together to create an approch to degree development: design and delivery

7 Historical landmarks: the start In the year 2000 a group of over one hundred European academics felt the need to address a challenge and decided to work together to create an approch to degree development: design and delivery

8 a group of over one hundred European academics They.belong to a region, soon to be joint by other groups ready to work with the same spirit came from excellent universities from every country of the European Union were selected by their universities and departments were hands-on people, with passion for HE, prepared to give time, share knowlegde and difficulties, with commitment to the task

9 and decided to work together always collaborative action, joint learning and joint ownership always based on common vission, capacity for peer leastening always based on debate, respect and valuing of diversity while searching for commonalities always based on developing consensus beyond borders, of getting to the essential

10 Historical landmarks: the start In the year 2000 a group of over one hundred European academics felt the need to address a challenge and decided to work together to create an approch to Degree development: design and delivery

11 Definir

12 A coherent system of building degrees was jointly developed

13 to create and aproch to degree development: design and delivery through intense listening and understanding, the different pieces came togher they associated to create, to think anew, to buildpropositive thinking and action developing common language, understood and shared by those involved in outcomes / processes in HE aware that design and delivery were two critical sides of the same coin

14 Historical landmarks: the start In the year 2000 a group of over one hundred European academics felt the need to address a challenge and decided to work together to create an approch to Degree development: design and delivery

15 felt the need to address a challenge: THE CHALLENGE OF RECOGNITION If students were to move, experience and create identity If professionals were to move freely to work If diversity was critical for Europe: common and diverse Comparable and transparent degrees Need to agree in points of reference points of reference-- common understanding

16 felt the need to address a challenge: THE CHALLENGE OF RELEVANCE Consultation with society a permanent feature Employability a constant concern Social responsibility and commitment Answer to social needs Inclusion of different socio-economic groups

17 felt the need to address a challenge: THE CHALLENGE OF QUALITY Seen as an opportunity for quality The debate on quality The meanings of quality: excellence, fit for purpose.. shared meanings Programme quality Transparency and consistency

18 Outline of the presentation Historical landmarks : the start Further widening and deepening Present work Future developments

19 Further widening and deepening As joint work continued different regions contributed to the Tuning approach: Australia strengthen the initial development in evaluation, USA reflected on evidence based impact, Latin America, Russia, Africa worked on profiles towards further simplification and structuring.credits and future thinking.

20 Outline of the presentation Historical landmarks : the start Further widening and deepening Present work Future developments

21 Three clusters profile programme learners process

22 Profiling designing horizonts listening to emerging realities engaging in future thinking

23 SOCIAL NEEDS

24 REFERENCE POINTS METAPROFILE

25 A Meta profile is a group s representation of the structure and combination of competences which gives identity to a thematic area The meta-profiles are referential elements and they are always mental constructions, destined to reflect and analyse possible classifications behind the reference points

26 Geology LA Competencias Genéricas Competencias Específicas V03 V05 V06-V07 V16 V04-V01-V08-V12-V V17 V09 V13 V11 V18 V02 Transversales (Ser) V14 V15 Básicas (Saber) Aplicadas (Hacer)

28 COMPETENCIAS GENÉRICAS Factor 1: Proceso de Aprendizaje [SABER] 1. Capacidad de abstracción, análisis y síntesis 2. Capacidad de aprender y actualizarse 3. Capacidad crítica y autocrítica 4. Habilidades para buscar, procesar y analizar información 5. Capacidad de comunicación oral y escrita Factor 2: Valores Sociales [SABER SER] 6. Compromiso con su medio socio-cultural 7. Valoración y respeto por la diversidad y multiculturalidad 8. Responsabilidad social y compromiso ciudadano 9. Compromiso con la preservación del medio ambiente 10. Compromiso ético Factor 3: Contexto tecnológico e internacional [SABER HACER] 11. Capacidad de comunicación en un segundo idioma 12. Habilidad para trabajar en contextos internacionales 13. Habilidades en el uso de las tecnologías de la información Factor 4: Habilidades interpersonales [SABER SER Y SABER HACER] 14. Capacidad para tomar decisiones 15. Habilidades interpersonales 16. Capacidad de motivar y conducir hacia metas comunes 17. Capacidad de trabajo en equipo 18. Capacidad para organizar y planificar el tiempo 19. Capacidad para actuar en nuevas situaciones DE 27 SE REDUJO A 19

29 Matriz de competencias genéricas vs competencias específicas CG/CE X X X X X X X X X X 2 X X X X X X X X X X X 3 X X X X X X X X 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 X X X X X 6 X X 7 X 8 X X X 9 X X X 10 X X X 11 X X 12 X X X X 13 X X X X X 14 X X X X 15 X X 16 X X X 17 X X X X 18 X X X X 19 X X X X FACTOR 1: PROCESO APRENDIZAJE FACTOR 2: VALORES SOCIALES FACTOR 3: CONTEXTO TECNOLÓGICO E INTERNACIONAL FACTOR 4: HABILIDADES INTERPERSONALES

30 Mapa de metaperfil con una coincidencia mayor al 50% 11G 12G Contexto tecnológico e internacional Proceso de aprendizaje 1E 2E 1G 2G 3G 4G 5G 3E 5E 10E 6E 8E 16E 9E 11E 13G 14E 7E 13E 4E 12E 14G 15G 16G 17G 18G 19G 6G 7G 8G 9G 10G 15E Valores sociales Habilidades interpersonales

31 FUTURE TRENDS

32 UNIVERSITY STRENGTHS

33 FUTURE TRENDS REFERENCE POINTS METAPROFILE REAL PROFILE UNIVERSITY STRENGTHS SOCIAL NEEDS

34 Cognitive Competences Professional Competences Interpersonal Competences Methodological Competences Civic Competences Practical Competences

35 Cognitive Competences Professional Competences Interpersonal Competences Methodological Competences Civic Competences Practical Competences

36 Cognitive Competences Professional Competences Interpersonal Competences Methodological Competences Civic Competences Practical Competences

37 Cognitive Competences Professional Competences Interpersonal Competences Methodological Competences Civic Competences Practical Competences

38 Cognitive Competences Professional Competences Interpersonal Competences Methodological Competences Civic Competences Practical Competences

39 Cognitive Competences Professional Competences Interpersonal Competences Methodological Competences Civic Competences Practical Competences

40 Programme Design Level Length and weight Theory/practice Planned Experiences Teaching and learning Assessment Programme evaluation Programme quality

41 The learners paths Learner centered Where is s/he?- the starting point Style of learning- Learning process Assessment Horizont Motivation Strengths Difficulties

42 Deepening THE CHALLENGE OF RECOGNITION in relation to profiles Reference points enriched and discussed in regions Further understanding between regions - also metaprofiles Understanding of differences and commonalities

43 Deepening THE CHALLENGE OF RECOGNITION in relation to programme Significant work done in the credit in Latin America and Russia Programme design comparative elements in relation to learners paths Deepening in tools

44 Deepening THE CHALLENGE OF RELEVANCE Further systems of consultation Analysis of future trends in society Social impact analysis Analysis of models of relation to enterprise Social groups engagement

45 Deepening THE CHALLENGE OF QUALITY Quality as excepcional, perfection, transformation Quality in profiles : new profiles for new societies Quality in the programme- the translation into the curriculum and consistency in the delivery Quality in an learner-centered system: capacity for transformation and empowerment

46 Outline of the presentation Historical landmarks : the start Further widening and deepening Present work Future developments

47 Future developments Widening a number of countries who want to participate The return to EU with an enriched instrument Marie Curie: impact evaluation and young researchers The Tuning Journal for Higher Education Future Trends The Tuning family of teachers and learners and teachers as learners

48 Thank you for being with us and for sharing your interest and commitment to Higher Education

Documentos relacionados

TUNING AMÉRICA LATINA EUROPE. Brussels June 16th, 2006

TUNING AMÉRICA LATINA EUROPE. Brussels June 16th, 2006 TUNING AMÉRICA LATINA Brussels June 16th, 2006 Survey characteristics 7 Areas 16 Countries Paper based 5 Areas 18 Countries On line survey 2001 2005 Generic Competences Sample size Academics 998 Employers