Google Scholar. Barnett, M. Rules for the world: International organizations in world politics. Batory, A. The power of the purse: Supranational entrepreneurship, financial incentive, and european higher education policy. CrossRef Google Scholar. Charle, C. Paris: Editions Syllepse. Corbett, A. Universities and the Europe of knowledge: Ideas, institutions and policy entrepreneurship in European Union higher education policy, — Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Cram, L. Calling the tune without paying the piper? Policy and Politics, 21 2 , — Dakowska, D. Bologna and higher education reform in post-communist transition: The case of Poland.
Kauppi Eds. Laboratories of reform? European Journal of Higher Education, 5 1 , 4— The OMC—a deliberative-democratic mode of governance? The case of employment and pensions. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 2 , — Deca, L. International norms in the reform of romanian higher education: A discursive analysis. European Journal of Higher Education, 5 1 , 34— Dostal, J. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 3 , — Dunlop, C.
Epistemic communities. Howlett, et al. London: Routledge. The European higher education area in Bologna process implementation report. European Commission. The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge. COM 58 final. COM final. Furlong, P. Sepsos Eds.
Future Skills Report 12222
The politics of differentiated integration pp. Palgrave: Basingstoke. Garben, S. The Bologna process: From a european law perspective. European Law Journal, 16 2 , — EU higher education law: The bologna process and harmonization by Stealth. Dordrecht: Wolters Kluwer. Geven, K. Bologna through whose eyes? Journal of the European Higher Education Area 4 , 1— Haas, P.
Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46 1 , 1— Harmsen, R. The Bologna process and new modes of governance: Logics and limits of arena-shaping. The governance of the global university: leadership and policy challenges. Haskel, B. Weak process, strong results: Cooperation in European higher education.
Verdun Eds. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Idema, T. New modes of governance, the open method of coordination and other fashionable red herring. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 7 1 , — Keeling, R. European Journal of Education, 4 2 , — Maesse, J. Die vielen stimmen des Bologna-Prozessess: Zur diskursiven Logik eines bildungspolitischen Programms. Bielefeld: Transcript. Muller, P. Radaelli, C. The open method of coordination: A new governance architecture for the European Union? Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies paper series.
The Future of Higher Education | Pew Research Center
Ravinet, P. From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: Why European Countries feel increasingly bound by their Commitment to the Bologna process. European Journal of Education, 43 3 , — Sabel, C. Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU.
European Law Journal, 14 3 , — Experimentalist governance in the European Union: Towards a new architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, V. Democracy in Europe: The EU and national polities. Schultheis, F. Smismans, S. New modes of governance and the participatory myth. West European Politics, 31 5 , — Thumfart, A. Implementing the goals of the Bologna process in Germany: From indifference to protest.
Veiga, A. Bologna and the institutionalisation of the European higher education area doctoral thesis.
University of Porto, Porto. Westerheijden, D. Finally, five were women and 16 were men. The internal panel was composed of 18 people invited personally by the primary investigator , who were section chiefs, managers, directors and advisers from Plan Ceibal. Ten women and eight men participated. The main criterion for invitation was that they would represent both education and technology divisions in the organisation. Also, eight internal panellists had an education background, eight had an engineering background and two had an economy background.
The average age of the panellists was As mentioned previously, the Delphi process consisted of two rounds, which were answered by both panels and comprised of online surveys. Each survey was reviewed and tested prior to its application. To prioritise new technologies by considering the importance of adoption and the feasibility thereof. To define strategies to counter challenges to the implementation of these technologies in the case of Plan Ceibal. The Delphi study explores the possible future supply of technology. We will now summarise the phase 2 of the study, as it is synthesised in [ 21 ].
The analysis includes the universe of urban schools in the primary and secondary education systems. This includes schools, each with its own wireless LAN covering each classroom. Footnote 8. These variables were collected hourly each day, beginning in , via a network monitoring system and were stored on a database maintained by Plan Ceibal.
We took a sample of each variable at a busy hour Footnote 9 to conduct our analysis. The data collected were completely anonymous by nature. As stated in [ 12 ], and given the fact that we cannot predict the future with precision, scenario planning allows us to understand plausible scenarios better. The main motivation is to explore possible futures and not to choose a favourite one. We also consider that these kinds of tools allow us not only to analyse possible futures but also to work actively toward a preferred future.
There is a wide range of definitions of scenarios in the visited bibliography [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. The definition adopted for our purpose is presented in [ 26 ]:. Definition 2 Scenario A scenario is a hypothetical sequence of events built with the purpose of focusing attention on causal processes and decision points. We followed the three basic stages of scenario construction methods, namely the identification of critical dimensions and key factors design , the construction of scenarios analysis and visualisation and narration results. Demand for educational technology: This dimension represents the level of use and appropriation of the different assets and devices with which Plan Ceibal supplies the educational system.
There is no unique way to validate scenarios. A series of focus groups one with decision makers and one with practitioners were developed within Plan Ceibal. The Futures Wheel method [ 27 ] was used in order to investigate further consequences of each scenario presented. This technique was perceived as very enlightening and encouraged profound discussion among participants through different scenarios, showing their potential and robustness for exploration. Two rounds were administered during this stage. The first round was carried out in July, The second round took place during October, Fourteen external panellists answered the second quiz, and 17 answers were obtained for the internal second round.
The minimum number of expected answers was 10 per panel [ 28 ]. In order to process the responses, an interquartile range IQR and interquartile deviation IQD was computed for each item:. After the first round, each technology was ranked according to the average score and the degree of consensus was computed. The IQD indicated the dispersion of answers along a given scale and is used as a proxy for consensus measurement [ 15 , 29 ]. The smaller the value of IQR is, the greater the consensus of the group concerning that item is [ 30 ].
With regard to a 5-point Likert-type scale, Footnote 10 a dynamic range of authors uses 1. To generate the ranking of new technologies, we ordered the items according to the highest and lowest average scores IQR. For the components of impact and usability, a metric called relevance was generated, which establishes the importance of adoption.
In addition, with the dimension of the horizon of adoption, they were sorted chronologically. Panellists were asked to rank five of the 19 initial items in terms of their importance. Given the selection frequency of each item and its order of importance for each panellist, a ranking was created. The top five implementation challenges were then analysed in the second round.
In the second round, two dimensions of the top five challenges were further evaluated by the panel:. Panellists were also asked to complete a field with a justification of the answers and a field with proposed strategies to leverage the resolution of each implementation challenge. Based on implementation difficulty and the forecast for dimensions, a metric called feasibility was tabulated, which indicates the extent to which each implementation challenge could be solved by From the textual answers and by using content analysis techniques [ 31 ], two outcomes were obtained:.
SWOT Analysis strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to solve implementation challenges. The network analysis focuses on patterns, cycles and seasonal effects, as shown in Fig. We present two charts. The first, aggregated into quarters, shows a consistent increase in the traffic demand from quarter to quarter. In the second chart, the aggregation is by month, showing a dramatic decrease during the summer break December to February and a moderate decrease during the winter break July.
The relationship between the demand for the network traffic and connections and the demand for infrastructure is included in the analysis. This information illustrates the requirements that the network supplier Plan Ceibal has to consider when planning the evolution of the demand. Finally, Fig. This considers that the behaviour of the global users remains the same.
Each of the four scenarios shows a possible paradigm regarding the adoption and use of technologies in the public education system in Uruguay. The word paradigm is used to refer to a dominant educational and technological model in the system under study. A new equilibrium is achieved between supply and demand via the powerful use and effective adoption of technology in the field of education.
The system tends to go back to previous stages before the existence of Plan Ceibal. However, this should not necessarily be seen as a worst-case scenario. In the Delphi study, there were three main limitations. The first was that the number of iterations was limited to two rounds in order to fit into the time-frame of the project.
Secondly, the tools to support communications and quizzes did not allow for the fluency of interaction with and real-time feedback to the panellists. Finally, new items suggested the panels could not be incorporated into the initial questionnaire. With regard to the network use analysis, two main limitations appeared. The first is it was not possible to identify whether the traffic and connections come from devices delivered by Plan Ceibal or from personal devices. Secondly, it was not possible to distinguish the nature of the traffic in other words, whether it was educational, recreational or another kind of activity on the network.
We consider it was an appropriate time frame because it matches strategic time scope. Finally, with regard to the scenario planning, as explained earlier, it is important to stress that its goal is not to predict but to identify, elucidate, align and understand relevant trends that are influencing the actors and the contexts that are linked to education and technology.
A principal result of the research is that challenges to achieving transformative and desirable scenarios for technological and educational integration at the system level are not of a technological nature. This finding is supported by the evidence driven directly from answers both in internal and external panels. The first output from the Delphi rounds is the ranking of most relevant new technologies for each panel.
The second output of the Delphi study is the ranking of the challenges. A high level of overlap was found between internal and external rankings. Download traffic has grown 13 times between and A final parameter that is very important in the planning and roadmapping of the educational infrastructure is the ratio between the download bandwidth demand and the installed capacity supply.
- The Future of Higher Education?
- Gartner Research.
- Brazil Education Scenarios?
- About Ulf-Daniel Ehlers?
- The Changing Russian University: From State to Market (Routledge Contemporary Russia and Eastern Europe Series).
- Future Skills Report | Future Skills.
The four scenarios are illustrated in Fig. The following is a description of the four scenarios constructed. Future scenarios for technology and education x —technology supply, y —technology demand. This scenario presents a new paradigm that is based on systemic innovation of educational technologies, with a key role being played by the association Plan Ceibal - ANEP.
The most relevant characteristic of this scenario is that the main challenges have been resolved, whereas the design and implementation have been consolidated into a new methodological framework for the system—or New Pedagogies for Deep Learning. From an educational change perspective, the system fosters techno-educational innovations, and change-management capacities are developed within the system.
The public policy is discouraged. The education system has experimented with a regression in its capacity to develop techno-educational innovations. The Consortium of Higher Education Researchers CHER was founded about three decades ago primarily as a membership organisation of academics based in academic departments of institutions of higher education or in research institutes specialized on higher education. CHER could rely on common interests of its core members to exchange knowledge on research, to generate ideas of enhancing the quality of research and stimulate cooperation of researchers in a common area of expertise.
When EAIR was founded about four decades ago, most of the founding fathers and mothers believed that such a single core group of members was likely to emerge in the near future. This expectation was based on the situation in the United States of America: There, the Association of Institutional Research AIR had primarily members, who were employed in special research units linked to the administration of individual universities and were expected to do research on select phenomena of their own institution in order to improve the knowledge relevant for rational strategies of improvement of this respective institution.
Actually, institutional research emerged here and there in Europe, but became not a broad movement.
However, EAIR persisted in bringing together academically based higher educational researchers, researchers with a dominant applied emphasis, administrators with part-time functions of collecting systematic information as well as managers and administrators, who were highly interested in a good information base as inspiration for enhancing the quality of higher education. Most of the persons active in EAIR and regularly interesting in EAIR had a prime professional association somewhere else, but liked to join EAIR as an association bridging the interests and the knowledge bases of those who jointly consider in-depth solid knowledge on higher education as a good breeding ground for ideas of enhancement.
It is risky to keep a bridging association flourish. This bridging concept of EAIR was successful for four decades, as the annual fora and other events, the publications and the opinions of the active and occasional participants of these varied activities show.
Related Four Future Scenarios for Higher Education
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved