| Task number | 2 |
|---|---|
| Name | UNITA Micro-credentials for Lifelong Learning |
| Strategic Axes | Education and Pedagogical Innovation |
| Workpackage | UNITA Lifelong education |
Source documentation:
| Name | Institution |
|---|---|
| Esther Edo Agustín | UNIZAR |
| Laurent Dutoit | HES-SO |
| Marc-Adrien Schnetzer | HES-SO |
| Joaquim Mateus | IPG |
| Catarina Gonçalves | IPG |
| Raquel Costa | UBI |
| Luisa Costa | UBI |
| Helena Alves | UBI |
| Marta Alves | UBI |
| Massimo Biondo | UNIBS |
| Riccardo Adamini | UNIBS |
| Oana Saramet | UNITBV |
| Daniela Necsoi | UNITBV |
| Carla Fois | UNITO |
| Francesco Floris | UNITO |
| Barbara Bruschi | UNITO |
| Marina Marchisio Conte | UNITO |
| Raquel Trillo Lado | UNIZAR |
| Salomé Goñi Legaz | UPNA |
| Yolanda Corredor | UPNA |
| Iruña Armendariz | UPNA |
| Krassimira Lacoustete | UPPA |
| Fabienne Gaspari | UPPA |
| Sorana Cimpan | USMB |
| Noelia Chambaz | USMB |
| Alexandru Popa | UVT |
| Bogdan Nadolu | UVT |
| Irina Macsinga | UVT |
| Mădălina-Elena Penciuc | UVT |
Source documentation: In each WP folder, document entitled “WPx_full_description)
| List of activities | Activity title | Activity description | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduce the new partners to the achievements and lessons learned from phase one and to Quality Assurance practices. | The new partners have been associated with the project's activities since June 2021, resulting in an easier and shorter acquaintance process. | (M1-M2) |
| 2 | Update the general synoptic assessment of partner Quality Assurance systems. | Building on phase one benchmarking by the QEB, by including the new partners' QA systems frameworks. Update and adopt the UNITA Quality Assurance policy to be implemented at partner and alliance level, with quantitative and qualitative indicators fitting the new WP and Tasks structure. Define opportunities of partner Quality Assurance synergies, further developing the common Quality Assurance policy respecting different institutional/regional/national contexts. Together with TTs 1.2 and 5.4, agree on the methodology for the evaluation of progress, processes, cost-efficiency, and deliverables, including systematic feedback from students, staff and stakeholders. Update the Quality Assurance plan by drawing a map through a logical table relating Tasks and indicators, defining all the processes to reach the objectives, and building a management quality system with procedure and codification for each process or activity. Train all the Task teams to the quality assurance policy and plan. | (M3-M12) |
| 3 | Implement and test the evaluation of progress, processes, cost-efficiency, and deliverables of the first year. | Producing a report for the QEB. Support the QEB in the production of the annual report with recommendations for the Governance Board (GB). Monitor the implementation of the corrective actions decided by the GB and evolve the quality assurance requirements and plan accordingly. Repeat evaluations emphasising identified areas of improvement. Evaluate and realize the independent assessment given by an external European Evaluation Agency, accommodating modifications in the interest of improvement. Draw lessons from the implementation of the quality assurance plan integrating best practices based on an inventory, mapping of the main QA processes on teaching, research, and public engagement. | (M13-M48) |
| 4 | Co-develop together with TT1.1 and disseminate the UNITA Quality Assurance strategy. | Matching with the ambition of developing a model of European University. Internally disseminate the strategy to all actors and in particular to the Quality Assurance Boards of the partners. Benchmark Quality Assurance strategy and practices with other European Universities by organizing and participating to mutual learning workshops. | (M24-M48) |
These indicators have been gathered from the different source (list below) and have been gathered from interviews driven by Task 5.4 UNITA impact observatory.
Source documentation: In each WP folder, document entitled “WPx_full_description)
These indicators have been chosen and agree during the Phase 2 proposal made to the European Commission.
| Indicator | Indicator Description | Unit of measurement | Data Source | Frequency | Baseline | Target | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | Number of UNITA Micro-Credentials as Unita Labels delivered by the in-house certification system | Numerical | Task 3.2 | Annual | 6 | 50 | Output |
To be defined by T5.4 members previously to interviews and to be proposed to task co leader
| Indicator Description | Unit of measurement | Data Source | Frequency | Baseline | Target | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Share of internal funding coming from UNITA MC offer (overhead towards UNITA Alliance from each UNITA partner) | Qualitative | UNITA Offices | Annual / To be precised | Outcome | ||
| Developments among universities partners that relate to activities & outputs of task 3.2 | Qualitative | Ad hoc survey | Once | Outcome |
To be defined by T5.4 members previously to interviews and to be proposed to task co leader
| Sub-Indicator Description | Parent Indicator | Type |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Unita MC vs non Unita MC within the partners | Number of UNITA Micro-Credentials as Unita Labels delivered by the in-house certification system | Output |
| Indicator Description | Data Source | Collection Type | Data Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Unita MC vs non Unita MC within the partners | USMB | Automatic | Task Team 3.2 |
| Share of internal funding coming from UNITA MC offer (overhead towards UNITA Alliance from each UNITA partner) | UNITA Offices | Manual | Task Team 3.2 |
| Developments among universities partners that relate to activities & outputs of task 3.2 | Ad hoc survey | Manual | Task Team 3.2 |
| Number of UNITA Micro-Credentials as Unita Labels delivered by the in-house certification system | Task 3.2 | Automatic | Task Team 3.2 |
Source documentation:
| Users / Beneficiaries Intern to UNITA | End-Users / Beneficiaries extern to UNITA | |
|---|---|---|
| 1) Who are the stakeholders benefiting of the task’s actions ? | The task will deliver an instrument for developing MC in / from other tasks. Thus, the use of this instrument by other tasks could be documented (especially: 2.2: Romance Languages Learning and Intercomprehension, 3.1: International Learning Paths for a Personalized Education, 3.3: Innovation in Teaching & Learning Initiative, 5.5: Expanding UNITA in Europe and Beyond) | No relevant information available |
| 2) To what extent has the local/international society changed as a result of outcomes compared to before UNITA? What are the long term results for them ? | No relevant information available | MC will have to be acknowledged by professional partners within the territories — this could be an impact within external stakeholders |
