Sv Emrex Exchanging student information 2014-09-25 Per
Zettervall
Slide 2
Sv Nordic forum for student information systems
Slide 3
Sv 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, the start
Slide 4
Sv 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 Nordforum, what did we talk
about
Slide 5
Sv 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 Early obstacles and problems
Slide 6
Sv 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
A mapping project was initiated
Slide 7
Sv Mapping exercises
Slide 8
Sv A mapping scheme
Slide 9
Sv
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 12
Exchange between nordic countries: Country Incoming Outgoing
Sweden 3158 3098 Norway 2303 3302 Finland 165+177 873 Denmark
44751092 (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
Student exchange in the nordic countries
Slide 13
Sv 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 A
Slide 14
Sv 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
Process B, admission
Slide 15
Sv 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 So processes are defined, start
building?
Slide 16
Sv 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 Pre study
Slide 17
Sv 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. Judicial prerequisites
Slide 18
Sv 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 Guidelines for the architecture
Slide 19
Sv Need for development of each countrys student information
system was listed Security handled through Terena certificates
Infological standard= ELMO Results
Slide 20
Sv Creation of a working pilot between at least two
universities. Completion of a full scale working system for at
least three Nordic countries Next phase
Slide 21
Sv 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. The
pilot phase in detail
Slide 22
Sv Emrex and the search for money
Slide 23
Sv 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 A more formal
project, benefits
Slide 24
Sv 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. Technichal architecture
Slide 25
Sv An example
Slide 26
Sv 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: trans- national 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 latest
Slide 27
Sv 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 The preproprosal
Slide 28
Sv A work in progress Deadline: October 2nd Even more
bureaucracy But hopefully, we are getting there. That was nothing,
now the proposal
Slide 29
Sv Proposal Slowly but surely
Slide 30
Sv 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?
Questions?
Slide 31
Sv www.uhr.se Denna layout kan anvndas fr UHR:s
samarbetslogotyper/underlogotyper. Placera logotyperna enligt
exemplen nedan.