Transcript Emrex - IAAO Conference 2014

2014-09-25
Per Zettervall
Emrex
Exchanging student information
Nordic forum for student information
systems
Nordforum, the start
• Was formed in 2006
• Initially Norway, Sweden and Finland,
Denmark joined later
• Participating organizations:
 Sweden: Ladok consortium
 Norway: FS, M-STAS
 Finland: Oodi, CSC
 Denmark: STADS
• Yearly meetings
Nordforum, what did we talk about
• The first years: Mostly updates/information
• ”How does it work in your country?”
• ”Should we do something together? Maybe
build a system?”
• Possibilities and obstacles
Early obstacles and problems
• Existing systems in different life cycle
positions
• Financing, the stake holders focus on local
problems
• Terminology problems- A course might be
the same in every country but in details,
things differ.
• It was all a bit of ”nice to have”, everyday
problems took over
A mapping project was initiated
• The project aimed at defining a common description of the
respectively
• Basic Objects, like (but not limited to)
 How to define persons and roles
 How to define our programmes and courses
 How to define relationships and process progress
• General Processes like (but not limited to)
 Admissions
 Study planning
 Registration
 Tuition (forming groups etc.)
 Examination
 Degrees
• Comparable terms/glossary
Mapping exercises
A mapping scheme
Student exchange in the nordic countries
Exchange between nordic countries:
Country
Incoming
Outgoing
Sweden
3158
3098
Norway
Finland
Denmark
2303
165+177
4475
3302
873
1092 (estimates)
The total number of students going abroad to other countries:
Sweden 25 000 for the school year 2011/12
Norway 14 616 for the year 2011
Denmark 9 865 for the school year 2009/10
Process A
1.
Student initiates transfer of credits from a source university.
This is probably done in system provided by the receiving
university. The mechanism uses Kalmar2-union to authorize
transfer. Sender system must be programmed for this. The
student hereby gives consent to sending the information.
2.
Receiving university receives information from source
university about credits for the students.
3.
Receiving university precesses information and stores for later
use. Branch to process B or go on.
4.
Academic recognition takes place. Credits are now assessed,
valued and accepted in relation to learners studies.
5.
Recognized credits are stored as a part of the student record.
6.
End for process A
7.
Information could be sent to State Loan fund etc
Process B, admission
1-3 same as process A.
4. Academic recognition takes place. Credits are used for
evaluation of learner for admission. This can be automated.
5. Admission is done and in case needed only the qualifying factor
is stored in the student register. After this process item 4 in process
A may be axecuted again.
End process B
So processes are defined, start building?
• Still need some kind of proof that it works
technically
• Still needs funding
• Still need to convince stake holders to get
funding
• Go on with a pre study
Pre study
• Directive: Clarify development
prerequisites and submit a proposal for
system support etc
• Target: People responsible for Student
information systems (boards, Directors etc)
• Purpose: Clarify if it is possible to build a
system to support student information
exchange between nordic countries
Judicial prerequisites
• In Sweden there are no problems with
sending electronic information to other
universities within the EES-area.
• In Norway, Denmark and Finland the laws
are not quite that permitting but still not
prohibiting this. There are some
requirements, for instance that the student
must be notified and also be able to see
data transported.
• An agreement must be in place for each
transfer between HEIs.
• The student is the initiating party of the
transaction, thereby permitting it.
Guidelines for the architecture
• Secure – the security is very important since personal data is
involved
• Simplicity for implementers – uptake of this system is dependent
on the ease of integration
• Maintainability – the developed parts has to be easy to maintain
• Multi-platform support – regardless of the software platform at
the local institution, an integration should be easy to create
Results
• Need for development of each countrys student information
system was listed
• Security handled through Terena certificates
• Infological standard= ELMO
Next phase
• Creation of a working pilot between at
least two universities.
• Completion of a full scale working system
for at least three Nordic countries
The pilot phase in detail
• Application for EU funding
• Detailed technical architecture including communication
protocols
• Development of generic Contact point (shared development)
• Development of mobility support service (shared and local
development)
• Implementation of pilot
• Operation of Pilot
• Collection of experiences and plan for phase three.
• Decision point go on with phase three, depending on funding or
not.
Emrex and the search for money
A more formal project, benefits
• Increase of availability, quality and reliability of information
about student records for the use for the benefit of the student
• Reduction of work hours spent on each student in university
administration
• Reduced amount of errors
• Extensions are possible
• By the way: EMREX = Field trial on the impact of enabling easy
mobility on recognition of external studies
Technichal architecture
Components in the architecture
– Contact point per country, containing
• Course/Credit Service
• Country-specific Course/Credit Service Implementation
– Mobility support service, that
• enables selection of available contact points (ie countries) for
the user
• Sends a query to selected contact point and forwards the user
to a national identification authority login page from a session
governed by contact point.
An example
The latest
• Focusing on putting together an application
to EACEA/10/2014, Erasmus +
• EACEA/10/2014 Key Action 3: European
policy experimentations in the fields of
Education and Training, and Youth: transnational cooperation for the
implementation of innovative policies
under the leadership of high-level public
authorities
• Possibility to get 1,5 million euro.
• You have to provide 25% of the money
yourself
The preproprosal
• Was sent in in May this year
• Poland and Italy joined in through
University of Warsaw and KION
• Contains:
 much formality
 project description
 budget
 policy measure to be tested
 target groups
 european added value
 experimentation method
 partner information
 outcomes
• Was approved in July
That was nothing, now the proposal
• A work in progress
• Deadline: October 2nd
• Even more bureaucracy
• But hopefully, we are getting there….
Slowly but surely…
• Proposal
Questions?
• Does it have ta take so long and will we ever be ready?
• Can others in Europe and the rest of the world use this?
• What are the obstacles:
 Legal?
 Technical?
 Financial?
 Business case?
www.uhr.se