Formazione & insegnamento
ISSN: 2279-7505 | Published: 2015-12-31
This landing page is part of an alternate academic indexing and SEO initiative curated by Pensa MultiMedia and the Executive Editorial Office.
Main Article Landing Page: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/view/1762
Full Text HTML (viewer): missing data
Full Text PDF (viewer): https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/view/1762/1700
Full Text HTML (file): missing data
Full Text PDF (file): https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/download/1762/1700
Alternate URL (this mirror): https://formazione-insegnamento.eu/2015-13/3/1762-criteria-indicators-e-benchmarking-for-the-quality-and-
Title: Criteria, Indicators e Benchmarking for the Quality and Evaluation Impact of the ICT in the Higher Education System
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to describe how the absence of interpretative frameworks of quality assessment in terms of the adoption of ICT in the context of teaching-learning university is pretty serious. The use of technology is transforming the nature of teaching and learning as well as the organization and management of teaching, though, in terms of evidence, it must also clearly determine its effectiveness. The literature points out that, beyond the systemic international comparative surveys, are still absent appropriate models of Quality Assurance (QA) to assess the extent of these changes and the existing ones appear poorly aligned with institutional strategies related to quality policies University. In order to overcome this limitation is necessary to develop criteria, indicators and benchmarking will be able to reflect this reality, even considering the fact that there is a diversity in institutions in the adoption of ICT both domestically and internationally that feeds or less a different digital divide even within those institutions that have adopted innovative ICT.
Keywords:
Title: Criteri, Indicatori e Benchmarking per la Qualità e la Valutazione dell'Impatto delle ICT nel Sistema dell'Istruzione Superiore
Abstract: L'obiettivo del presente contributo è quello di descrivere come l'assenza di quadri interpretativi della valutazione della qualità sul piano dell'adozione delle ICT nei contesti di insegnamento-apprendimento universitario sia piuttosto grave, poiché l'impiego delle tecnologie sta trasformando la natura dell'insegnamento e dell'apprendimento oltre che l'organizzazione e la gestione didattica, anche se, sul piano delle evidenze, occorre ancora con chiarezza determinarne l'efficacia. La letteratura rileva come, al di là delle ricognizioni sistemiche internazionali di tipo comparativo, siano ancora assenti modelli adeguati di Assicurazione della qualità (AQ) atti a valutare la portata di tali cambiamenti e quelli esistenti appaiano scarsamente allineati alle strategie istituzionali legate alle politiche di qualità delle Università. Al fine di superare questo limite occorre sviluppare criteri, indicatori e strategie di benchmarking capaci di dare conto di tale realtà, anche in considerazione del fatto che si registra nelle istituzioni una diversificazione nell'adozione delle ICT sia a livello nazionale che internazionale che alimenta o meno un diverso digital-divide anche all'interno di quelle istituzioni che hanno adottato sistemi innovativi ICT.
Keywords:
Title: Critères, indicateurs et comparaison pour la qualité et l'évaluation de l'impact des TIC dans le système d'enseignement supérieur
Abstract: L'objectif de cette contribution est de décrire comment l'absence de peintures interprétatives de l'évaluation de la qualité de l'adoption des TIC dans les contextes de l'apprentissage de l'enseignement-université est assez grave, car l'utilisation des technologies transforme la nature de l'enseignement et de l'apprentissage ainsi que de l'organisation et de la gestion didactique, même si, en termes de preuves, il est encore nécessaire de déterminer clairement son efficacité.La littérature note que, au-delà de l'enquête systémique internationale comparative, des modèles adéquats d'assurance qualité (AQ) sont toujours absents pour évaluer la portée de ces changements et les changements existants semblent mal alignés sur les stratégies institutionnelles liées aux politiques de qualité des universités.Afin de surmonter cette limite, les critères, les indicateurs et les stratégies de benchmarking sont nécessaires capables de rendre compte de cette réalité, également en considération du fait qu'il existe une diversification dans l'adoption des TIC à la fois nationale et internationale qui alimente ou non un divide numérique différent au sein des établissements qui ont adopté des systèmes innovants en TIC. (This version of record did not originally feature translated metadata in this target language; the translation is hereby provided by Google Translation)
Keywords:
Title: Criterios, indicadores y evaluación comparativa para la calidad y evaluación del impacto de las TIC en el sistema de educación superior
Abstract: El objetivo de esta contribución es describir cómo la ausencia de pinturas interpretativas de la evaluación de la calidad de la adopción de las TIC en los contextos del aprendizaje de la universidad de la enseñanza es bastante grave, ya que el uso de las tecnologías está transformando la naturaleza de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje, así como el manejo de la organización y la didáctica, incluso en términos de evidencia, aún es necesario determinar claramente su efectividad.La literatura señala que, más allá de la encuesta sistémica internacional comparativa, los modelos adecuados de seguros de calidad (AQ) aún están ausentes para evaluar el alcance de estos cambios y los existentes parecen poco alineados con las estrategias institucionales relacionadas con las políticas de calidad de las universidades.Para superar este límite, los criterios, los indicadores y las estrategias de evaluación comparativa son necesarias capaces de dar cuenta de esta realidad, también en consideración del hecho de que existe una diversificación en la adopción de las TIC tanto a nivel nacional como internacional que alimenta o no un dividido digital diferente también dentro de aquellas instituciones que han adoptado sistemas innovadores de ICT. (This version of record did not originally feature translated metadata in this target language; the translation is hereby provided by Google Translation)
Keywords:
Title: Critérios, indicadores e benchmarking para a qualidade e avaliação do impacto das TIC no sistema de ensino superior
Abstract: O objetivo dessa contribuição é descrever como a ausência de pinturas interpretativas da avaliação da qualidade da adoção das TIC nos contextos da aprendizagem de ensino-universidade é bastante grave, uma vez que o uso de tecnologias está transformando a natureza do ensino e da aprendizagem, bem como a organização e a gestão didática, mesmo que, em termos de evidência, ainda seja necessário determinar claramente a sua eficácia.A literatura observa que, além da pesquisa sistêmica internacional comparativa, os modelos adequados de seguro de qualidade (AQ) ainda estão ausentes para avaliar o escopo dessas mudanças e as existentes parecem pouco alinhadas com estratégias institucionais relacionadas às políticas de qualidade das universidades.Para superar esse limite, são necessários critérios, indicadores e estratégias de benchmarking capazes de dar conta dessa realidade, também em consideração do fato de que existe uma diversificação na adoção de TIC nacional e internacionalmente, que alimenta ou não uma divisão digital diferente também nas instituições que adotaram sistemas inovadores adotados. (This version of record did not originally feature translated metadata in this target language; the translation is hereby provided by Google Translation)
Keywords:
Badenhorst, J. J. C., & de Beer, J. K. (2004). Blended Learning at the Central University of Technology, Free State. Paper presented in the emerge 2004 conference on 29 June-8 July 2004. From: http://emerge2004net/connect/site/UploadWSC/emerge2004/ file20/emerge 2004article.doc.
Bartolic-Zlomislic, S. & Bates, A. W. (1999). Assessing the costs and benefits of TeleLearning. A case study from the University of British Columbia. From: http://det.cstudies.ubc.ca/detsite/researchproj.htm [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Ben Youssef, A., & Dahmani, M. (2008). Uses of information and communication technologies in europe’s higher education institutions: from digital divides to digital trajectories. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 5(1), 45-56
Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Biggs, J. B. (2001). The reflective institution: assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 221-238. Biggs, J. B. (20032). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Blanchette, J., & Kanuka, H. (1999). Applying constructivist learning principles in the virtual classroom. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 1999 (pp. 434-439). Chesapeake: AACE. From: http://www.editlib.org/p/17464 [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Blurton, C. (2002). New directions of ICT-use in education. http://www.unescoorg/ education/educprog/lwf/dl/edict.pdf;accessed. [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Bogue, E. G. (1998). Quality assurance in higher education: the evolution of systems and design ideals. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1998(99), 718.doi:10.1002/ir.9901
Bottani, N., & Tuijnman, A. (1994). International education indicators: framework, development and interpretation. In CERI (Ed.) Making education count. Paris: OECD.
Bourke, A. (2000). A model of determinants of international trade in higher education. The Service Industries Journal, 20(1), 110-138. http://dx.doi.org/101080/0264206000000 0007. [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning – beyond quality and competence in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
Bratti, M., Checchi, D., & De Blasio, G. (2008). Does the expansion of Higher Education increases equality of educational opportunities? Evidence from Italy. Review of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, 22(s1), 53-88
Burge, E., Campbell, C. Gibson, T. (2012). Flexible pedagogy, flexible practice. Notes from the trenches of distance education. Distance education, 33(3), 429-436. Calvani, A. (2004a). Cos’è la tecnologia dell’educazione. Roma: Carocci. Calvani, A. (2004b). Manuale di tecnologie dell’educazione. Pisa: ETS.
Collis, B., & van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education: an international comparative survey on the current and future uses of ICT in Higher Education, University of Twente, Enschede: CHEPS.
Costa S., Cuzzocrea F., Nuzzaci A. (2014). Usos de Internet en contextos educativos informales: implicaciones para la educación formal – Use of the Internet in educative informal contexts. Implication for formal education. Comunicar, 43(22), 163-171
Coughlin, J. F. (1999). Technology needs of aging boomers. Issues in Science and Technology,16(1).http://issues.org/16-1/coughlin/ [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Cox, M. J. (2008). Researching IT in education. in J. Voogt, J. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, Section 10: Researching IT in Education (pp. 965-982). New York: Springer.
Cox, M. J., & Marshall, G. (2007). Effects of ICT: do we know what we should know? Education and Information Technologies, 12(2), 59-70
Czerniewicz, L., & Brown, C. (2005). Access to ICT for teaching and learning: from single Antonella Nuzzaci 266 artefact to interrelated resources. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 1(2), 42-56
Czerniewicz, L., Ravjee, N., & Mlitwa, N. (2005). Mapping the landscape ICTs in Higher Education in South Africa. Pretoria: Report for the Council for Higher Education.
Earle, R. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: promises and challenges. Educational Technology, 42(1), 5-13. Empirica (2006a). Benchmarking access and use of ICT in European schools 2006: final report from head teacher and classroom teacher surveys in 27 European countries. From: http://europa.euint/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/studies /final_ report_3.pdf Empirica (2006b). Use of computers and the Internet in schools in Europe 2006. 27 Country briefs. From: http://europa.euint/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/ studies /learnind_country briefs_pdf.zip. [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
EUA – European University Association (2015). Eureqa moments! Top tips for internal quality assurance. Brussels: EUA.
European Commission (2002). eEurope Benchmarking Report, Brussels, 2002. From: http://europa.euint/information_society/eeurope/ benchmarking/index_en.htm. [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
European Commission (2015). Quality and relevance in higher education. From: http://ec europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/quality-relevance_en.htm.
Falck, O., Mang, C., & Woessmann, L. (2015). Virtually no effect? Different uses of classroom computers and their effect on student. Achievement. CESifo Working Paper No. 5266. From: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/seminarpapers/27-02-15-LW.pdf
Galliani, L. (2002). Tecnologie informatiche e telematiche. Lecce:
Goddard, B. (2012). Making a difference: Australian international education. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Goodlad, S. (1995). The guest for quality: the sixteen forms of heresy in higher education. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2009). Digital technologies in higher education: Sweeping expectations and actual effects. New York: Nova Science.
Hae-Deok S., Taehoon K. (2012). Evaluating the impacts of ICT use: a multi-level analysis with hierarchical linear modeling. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 132-140. Hämäläinen, K., Hämäläinen, K. Jessen, A., Kaartinen–Koutaniemi, M. & Kristoffersen, D. (2002). Benchmarking in the improvement of higher education. Helsinki: ENQA Report for the Department of Education, Science and Training, Australian Government. Harrison, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Haw, K., Lewin, C., Lunzer, E., McFarlane, A., Mavers, D.,.
Scrimshaw, P., Somekh, B., & Watling, R. (2002). ImpacCT2: the impact of information and communication technologies on pupil learning and attainment. London: DfES and Becta.
Harvey, L. (1998). An assessment of past and current approaches to quality in higher education. Australian Journal of Education, 42(3), 237-255
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9-34
Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press.
Houston, D. (2008). Rethinking quality and improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 61-79. doi:10.1108/09684880810848413
IAU – International Association of Universities (2005). Global Survey 2005. Paris: IAU.
IHEP – Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. Washington: Institute for Learning and Research Technology. 2003. Embedding Learning Technologies Institutionally: A Workshop Pack for Higher and Further Education. University of Bristol.
CHEA – Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance (2002). Accreditation and assuring quality in distance learning. CHEA Monograph Series. Number 1. Criteri, Indicatori e Benchmarking 267
Jackson, N., Lund, H. (2000). Benchmarking for higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Jaffer, S., Ng’ambi, D., & Czerniewicz, L. (2007). The role of ICTs in higher education in South Africa: one strategy for addressing teaching and learning challenges. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 3(4), 131-142
Kirkup, G., & Kirkwood, A. (2005). Information and communications technologies (ICT) in higher education teaching: a tale of gradualism rather than revolution. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 185-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880500093810 [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and Learning in the 21st Century: What do we know about students’ attitudes and experiences of ICT that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30: 257-274
Kozma, R. (2008). Comparative analyses of policies for ICT in education (pp 10883-1096). In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. Berlin: Springer Science.
Labelle, R. (2005). ICT Policy formulation and e-strategy development: a comprehensive guidebook. UNDP-APDIP and Elsevier. http://www.apdipnet/publications/ict4d/ict4 dlabelle.pdf. [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015]. Laurillard, D. (2001a). The E-University: what have we learned?. International Journal of Management Education, 1(2), 3-7. Laurillard, D. (2001b). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: Routledge Falmer.
Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms for mobile learning. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning: towards a research agenda (153-175). London: WLE Centre, Institute of Education University of London.
Law, D. C. S. (2010). Quality assurance in post-secondary education. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(1), 64-77
Lebrun, M. (2007). Quality towards an expected harmony: pedagogy and technology speaking together about innovation. AACE Journal, 15(2), 115-130
Liao, Y-K. C., & Hao, Y. (2008). Large scale studies and quantitative methods. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1019-1035). New York: Springer.
Liston, C. (1999). Managing quality and standards. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lucas, L. (2015). Academic resistance in the UK: challenging quality assurance processes in higher education. Policy and Society, 33(3), 215-224
Marshall, G., & Cox, M. (2008). Research Methods: their design, applicability and reliability. In J. Voogt. G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 983-1002). New York: Springer.
McFarlane, A. (2001). Perspectives on the relationships between ICT and assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 227-234
McKinnon, K. R., Walker, S. H., & Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking: a manual for Australian universities. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher Education Division.
McNaught, C., Kennedy, D., & Majoor, J. (2002). Designing online learning sites to cater for learners’ needs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2002). Auckland, New Zealand, 3-6 December.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Structure. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.
Middlehurst, R. (2003). Competition, collaboration and ICT: challenges and choices for higher education institutions. In M. van der Wende & M. van der Ven (Eds.). The use of ICT in higher education: a mirror of Europe (pp. 253-275). Bonn: Uitgeverij Lemma BV. Nuzzaci, A. (2011a). Technological literacy in the profile of skills of University professor in the New European Higher Education System. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 2(2), 11-26. Nuzzaci, A. (2011b). Evaluating (and assessing) to build a quality media education”, in REM, Antonella Nuzzaci 268 3(2), 181-194. Nuzzaci A. (2012a). Progettare, pianificare e valutare gli interventi educativi. Brescia-Lecce: Editore s.r.l. Nuzzaci A. (2012b), Ricerca educativa e didattica generale nel dominio del sistema d’azione. In P. C. Rivoltella, P. G. Rossi (a cura di), L’agire didattico. Manuale per gli insegnanti (pp. 407-432). Brescia: La Scuola. Nuzzaci, A. (2012c). The ‘Technological good’ in the multiliteracies processes of teachers and Students. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 3(3), 1226. Nuzzaci, A. (2014a). ICT, lifelong learning and control quality centre: which strategies for an integrated system for the development of a ‘Smart University’?. REM-Research on Education and Media, 6(1), 67-86. Nuzzaci, A. (2014b). ICT, multiliteracies e qualità. In Il ruolo delle ICT nella comunicazione scientifica, didattica e pubblica, Aula Copernico, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Ferrara, 3 novembre 2014
Nuzzaci A. (2015). L’apprendimento della ‘scienza dell’insegnamento’: il test di accesso a Scienze della Formazione Primaria predice il successo nella progettazione didattica? – Learning the ‘science of teaching’: Does the access test of Degree Course in Primary Education Sciences predicts the success in instructional design?. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 8(14), 227-247
Nuzzaci, A., & Grange T. (2009). Qualità, ricerca, didattica. Quale sistema europeo per l’istruzione superiore? Milano: FrancoAngeli.
O’Connor, M. C. & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971–990
OECD-CERI (2008). Trends shaping education. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2009). Education at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. From: http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/43669036.pdf
OECD (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. From: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
OECD (2015). Adults, computers and problem solving: what‘s the problem?. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Okojie, M., Olinzock, A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. (2006). The pedagogy of technology integration. The Journal of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66-71
Oliver, R. (2001). Assuring the quality of online learning in Australian higher education. In M. Wallace, A. Ellis & D. Newton (Eds.). Proceedings of the Moving Online II Conference. Lismore: Southern Cross University.
Oliver, R. (2002). The role of ICT in higher education for the 21st Century: ICT as a change agent for education. In the Proceedings of the Higher Education for the 21st Century Conference (Miri, 24-26 September, 2002). Sarawak: Curtin University.
Penuel, W. R. (2005). Recommendations for evaluation research within educational innovations. Center for Technology in learning, SRI International. From: http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/Rec_Eval_Research_within_Edu_Innovations.pdf [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Plomp, T., Pelgrum, W. J., & Law, N. (2007). SITES2006: International comparative survey of pedagogical practices and ICT in education. Education and Information Technologies, 12(2), 83-92. From: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9029-5 [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Prost, A. (1992). L’enseignement s’est-il démocratisé? Paris: PUF.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Reeves, T. (2008). Evaluation of the design and development of IT tools in education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1037-1051). New York: Springer,.
Richards, C. (2006). Towards an integrated framework for designing effective ICT-supported learning environments: the challenge to better link technology and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education (15)2, 239-255. Criteri, Indicatori e Benchmarking 269
Rivoltella, P. C. (2003). Costruttivismo e pragmatica della comunicazione on line. Socialità e didattica in Internet. Trento: Erickson.
Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. Internet and Higher Education, 6(3), 1-16
Sanders, J. (1997). Women in technology: Attribution, learned helplessness, self-esteem, and achievement. Paper presented at the Conference on Women, Girls and Technology, Tarrytown, New York.
Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182-203
Schacter, D. L. (2011). The seven sins of memory: how the mind forgets and remembers. New York and Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Scheuermann, F., & Pedró, F. (2009). Assessing the effects of ICT in education. Indicators, criteria and benchmarks for international comparisons. Luxembourg: European Commission – Publications Office of the European Union.
Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H., & Crawford, L. (2015). Definitions of quality in higher education: a synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(3), 3-13. Schofield, A. (1998a). An introduction to benchmarking in higher education. In Benchmarking in higher education. A study conducted by the Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service (pp. 6-11). Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Schofield, A. (1998b). Benchmarking: an overview of approaches and issues in implementation. In Benchmarking in higher education. A study conducted by the Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service (pp. 11-31). Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Smith, R. S. (2004). Guidelines for authors of learning objects. Austin: The New Media Consortium. Http://nmc.org/guidelines/NMC%20LO%20Guidelines.pdf.
Spendolini, M. (1992). The benchmarking book. New York: AMACOM Books. From http://www.netlibrary.com/Reader/[Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Thomas, L. (2011). Do pre-entry interventions such as ‘aim higher’ impact on student retention and success? A review of the literature. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(3), 230-250
Thune, T., & Welle-Strand, A. (2005). ICT for and in internationalization processes: a business school case study. Higher Education, 50(4), 593-611. From: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068113 [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Tross, S. A., Harper, J. P., Osher, L. W., & Kneidinger, L. M. (2000). Not just the usual cast of characteristics: using personality to predict college performance and retention. Journal of College Student Development, 41(3), 323-334
Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge maps: ICTs in education. Washington: infoDev/World Bank. UNESCO (2003a). Developing and using indicators of ICT use in education. Bangkok: UNESCO. From: http://www unescobkk.org/index.php?id=662 UNESCO (2003b). Performance indicators for ICT in education. Bangkok: Unesco. From: http://www.unescobkk.org/index.php?id=1109 [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
UNESCO-Institute for Statistics (2005). ICTs and education indicators: suggested core indicators based on meta-analysis of selected international school surveys. WSIS Phase II, Tunis. From: http://www.itu.int/ITUD/ict/partnership/material/ICT_Education_Paper_Nov_2006.pdf [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015]. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2008b). Proposal for internationally comparable core indicators on ICTs in education. Montreal: UNESCO. From: http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/cscl/ICT/bckgrdcore.pdf [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015]. UNESCO (2008c). ICT competency standards for teachers. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2011a). ICT for Higher Education case studies from Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: UNESCO. From: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002141/214143E.pdf [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015]. UNESCO (2011b). ICT in education: ICT at the tertiary level. From: http://www unescobkk.org/education/ict/themes/teaching-learning/ict-in-tertiaryeducation/. [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015]. Antonella Nuzzaci 270
Valcke, M. (2004). ICT in higher education: an uncomfortable zone for institutes and their policies. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 20-35). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/valcke-keynote.html
Van der Merwe, D., & Möller, J. (2004). New Unisa; Integration of the two home-grown Learner Management Systems of “Old Unisa” and “Old TSA”: the past, the merger and the future. Paper presented at the emerge 2004 Online Conference (29 June – 8 July, 2004). From: http://emerge2004.net/connect/site/UploadWSC/emerge2004/file22/emergevandermerwemoller [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Wagner, D. A., Day, B., James, T., Kozma, R. B., Miller, J., & Unwin, T. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation of ICT in education projects: a handbook for developing countries. ICT and Education Series. Washington: InfoDev/World Bank. From http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.9.html [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
Watson, G. H. (1993). Strategic benchmarking. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
WCET – Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (2001). Best practices for electronically offered degree and certificate programs. Boulder: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)
Vlãsceanu, L., Grünberg, L., & Pârlea, D. (2004). Quality assurance and accreditation. A Glossary of basic terms and definitions. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.
Woodhouse, D. (1999). Quality and quality assurance. In H. de Wit, J. Knight & Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Secretary-General. Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education (Eds.), Quality and internationalization in higher education (pp. 29-43). Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
World Bank (2004). Monitoring and evaluation: some tools, methods and approaches. Washington: World Bank Group. From: http://www.worldbank.org/oed/oed_approach html. [Ultima consultazione 10/12/2015].
World Bank (2005). E-strategies monitoring and evaluation toolkit. Washington: World Bank Group.
Yarrow, D. J., and Prabhu, V. B. (1999). Collaborating to compete: benchmarking through regional partnerships. Total Quality Management, 1999, 10(4-5), 793-802. Criteri, Indicatori e Benchmarking 271