Mapping Diversity: Developing a European Classification of ... - U-Map

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Indicator 3.1.2a.: number of European students as % of total enrolment 49 • important indicator; • to be related to 3.1.1. (similar defi nitions); • data available. Indicator 3.1.2b.: number of programmes offered abroad • not very relevant for NTNU; NTNU not interested in this, only as development aid. Extra indicator: number of joint international programmes as % of total number of offered programmes • needs clear defi nitions: minimum standards for: o number of international partners (one is acceptable for NTNU); o total duration of stay (of students) in partner institution(s); • data can be provided. Indicator 3.1.3.: number of international staff as % of total staff • diffi cult to defi ne; probably best by citizenship (but creates confusion); • important indicator; • data available. Dimension 9: involvement in lifelong learning Needs a clear defi nition of lifelong learning. If defi ned by age of students confusion is created. Proportion of mature students is characteristic of the student body, but not necessarily an indicator for involvement in lifelong learning. Also: dimension should be transferred to education. Indicator 3.2.1.: number of mature students (> 30 years) as % of total enrolment • unclear indicator; • alternatives: number of programmes/courses offered to lifelong learning students; number of students with serious (?) work experience; • data on age of students available. Dimension 10: Size Indicator 4.1.1.: enrolment • important indicator; • data available. Indicator 4.1.2.1: staff (number? fte?) • important indicator; • PhD students in Norway are staff; correct for this category; • data available. MAPPING DIVERSITY
50 New indicator: budget/total turnover • needed, to relate to other indicators; • data available. Dimension 11: mode of delivery Indicator 4.2.1.: campus vs. distance (% of programme? % of students?) • dimension should be transferred to ‘education’; • unclear indicator because more and more programmes are ‘dual mode’; distributed learning becomes more important. Indicator 4.2.2.: number of part time programmes offered as % of total number of programmes • this additional indicator was suggested by Advisory Board; • unclear indicator; • perhaps to relate to Dimension 9 (lifelong learning)? Dimension 12: community services This dimension is vague. Perhaps better not use Dimension 13: public/private character Indicator 4.4.1.: % private income in total income • important indicator; • private funding should include funding by public organisations that contract out to the institution for specifi c tasks; • data available. Dimension 14: legal status Indicator 4.5.1: public/private status MAPPING DIVERSITY • to be defi ned in legal terms; • in Norway universities are state institutions.
Page 1 and 2: Mapping Diversity Developing a Euro
Page 4 and 5: Mapping Diversity Contents Developi
Page 6 and 7: The research project team consisted
Page 8 and 9: 2. Building a European Classificati
Page 10 and 11: with university rankings, rankings
Page 12 and 13: Classifi cations use the principles
Page 14 and 15: Table 1: Draft and classifi cation
Page 16 and 17: • Fontys Hogescholen, the Netherl
Page 18 and 19: 3.1.2 Response to the survey 67 Res
Page 20 and 21: The question ‘this dimension is e
Page 22 and 23: 4. Conclusions 21 In this chapter w
Page 24 and 25: of information on non-degree offeri
Page 26 and 27: 4.3 Reduction of the number of dime
Page 28 and 29: Dimension Indicator new and suggest
Page 30 and 31: 5. Operational implementation Part
Page 32 and 33: etter world’ from 19 th to 20 th
Page 34 and 35: Government model In this model gove
Page 36 and 37: also underline the need for coopera
Page 38 and 39: Bailey, K. D. (1994) Typologies and
Page 40 and 41: Annex I: Exploratory analysis of ex
Page 42 and 43: EU The Rebaspinoff projects (part o
Page 44 and 45: World of Learning. If a further bre
Page 46 and 47: Annex II: The case studies 45 Case
Page 48 and 49: Indicator 1.3.1.: number of program
Page 52 and 53: Case Study: University of Strathcly
Page 54 and 55: Indicator 1.3.2.: number of program
Page 56 and 57: Indicator 4.2.2.: number of part ti
Page 58 and 59: The dimension ‘cultural engagemen
Page 60 and 61: Figure 4: Institutional profi les b
Page 62 and 63: and life long learning. Feasibility
Page 64 and 65: Conclusions The pilot survey showed
Page 66 and 67: Indicator 10b: The percentage of pr
Page 68 and 69: Figure 32: Higher education institu
Page 70 and 71: Introduction 69 Rationale for the s
Page 72 and 73: Table 2: Age strata IAU based strat
Page 74 and 75: What is more problematic (or more d
Page 76 and 77: Table 5: Overview of indicators and
Page 78 and 79: Figure 3: Opinions regarding the st
Page 80 and 81: Figure 4: Opinions on the statement
Page 82 and 83: enrolment and 12a: legal status) or
Page 84 and 85: Data from existing sources The ques
Page 86 and 87: Valid cases The fourth indication o
Page 88 and 89: ate (3r d doctor cycle) or (1st bac
Page 90 and 91: If 40% is used as a cutoff point, t
Page 92 and 93: doct er mast Figure 16: Higher educ
Page 94 and 95: As a result of the discussion on th
Page 96 and 97: Indicator 6d: Financial volume of p
Page 98 and 99: doctorate er mast or bachel or +mas
Page 100 and 101:
Indicator 9a: Enrolment The number
Page 102 and 103:
er mast or bachel er mast or bachel
Page 104 and 105:
Figure 37: Higher education institu
Page 106 and 107:
Indicator 13b: Exhibitions 105 The
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 44: Higher education institu
Page 110 and 111:
The clustering is based on the corr
Page 112 and 113:
as well as dimension 4 (involvement
Page 114 and 115:
Appendix 1: Comments 113 Dimension
Page 116 and 117:
7e number of program offered abroad
show all

Mapping Diversity: Developing a European Classification of ... - U-Map

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?