CLIL Key Performance Indicator Framework

Page 1





David Marsh, EduCluster Finland Ltd., University of Jyväskylä Group, Finland Moira Hunter, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Architecture Paris-Malaquais, France September 2012


•  This KPI Framework is based on a systemic overview of L2 programming in higher education through use of 2D Social Media & 3D Immersive environments in Architecture & Design using Content and Language Integrated Learning – CLIL •  Weighting assumes 60% as minimum for achieving success •  The Framework can be modified and applied to L2 programmes in other Higher Education contexts


Key Performance Indicator

#

Descriptor

%

Data

Institution Languages Policy

1

Available

5

Evidence

Institutional Strategy for L2 Programmes

2

Available

5

Evidence

Equality of Status: Language and Content Professionals

3

Remuneration, Grade

10

System

Language Specialists involved in Planning L2 Programmes

4

Active

15

Active

Language Specialists embedded in Faculty/depts

5

Functional

10

System

L2 Programmes linked to Research in Institution

6

Active

10

Evidence

L2 Skills of Staff Evaluated

7

Active

15

Evidence

Professional Development: Teaching through Technologies

8

Active

10

System

L2 Objectives for Programme

9

Explicit

10

Evidence

Incentives for Staff Involved

10

Operational

10

System

Strategy & Governance


Key Performance Indicator

#

Descriptor

%

Data

Student Cohorts Local & International

1

Mixed ratio

5

Statistics

Formative Assessment of Content and Language

2

Dual focus formative assessment

15

System

L2 Language/communication Objectives

3

Explicit

15

Evidence

Content Specialists Focus on Concept Formation in L2

4

Explicit (more than through L1 teaching)

15

Evidence

Pre-programme Student L2 Assessment

5

Active

10

Testing

Staff Involvement Voluntary

6

No undue coercion

5

System

Coordinated Staff Dialogue

7

Regular

15

System

Benchmarking against L1 Programmes

8

Periodic

5

Evidence

Separate Language Input at Prime Time

9

Language teaching embedded in optimal hours

10

System

Plagiarism Management

10

System active

5

System

L2 Programme Management


Key Performance Indicator

#

Descriptor

%

Data

Content and Language Learning Objectives identifiable

1

Explicit

10

Evidence

Induction Courses in use of complex environments

2

Active

5

System

Time allocated for Language Input

3

Optimal

10

System

Use of Interactional Methods supporting Content and Language Learning

4

Ongoing

15

Evidence

Structured Opportunities for Learning through Communities of Practice

5

Ongoing

15

Evidence

Language & Conceptual Scaffolding

6

Embedded

15

Evidence

Language / Communication Assessment

7

Active

10

System

Clustering of Language and Content Staff for Course Delivery

8

Specific individuals working jointly

5

System

Staff International Networking

9

Active

5

Evidence

Cooperative Ventures across Organisations

10

Active

10

Evidence

Professional Integration


Key Performance Indicator

#

Descriptor

%

Data

Knowledge Management Platform for Staff

1

Operable

5

System

Interoperability Framework Established

2

Active

5

System

Correspondence Management System

3

Active

15

System

Ease of Navigation & Use

4

Satisfaction rate

15

Questionnaire

Ease of Access

5

Satisfaction rate

10

Questionnaire

Connectivity & Functionality

6

Downtime

10

Evidence

Speed & Usability

7

Satisfaction rate

10

Questionnaire

Problem-solving Response Time

8

Time-based

5

Evidence

Inventory & Storage

9

Inventory management system operable

15

System

IT Technical Support

10

Availability

10

System

Infrastructure & Technical


Key Performance Indicator

#

Descriptor

%

Data

Relevance

1

Programme strongly connected to knowledge & skills-building

10

Evidence

Customization

2

Flexibility enables optimal learning opportunities

5

Questionnaire

Feedback

3

Feedback is constructive and constant

5

Questionnaire

Cognition

4

Tasks and learning objects promote higher order thinking

15

Evidence

Usability

5

Independent usability

10

Questionnaire

Engagement

6

User motivation and response

10

Questionnaire

Pooling & Sharing

7

Communities of learning operable

10

Evidence

Teaching Staff Satisfaction

8

Satisfaction rates

10

Questionnaire

Student Satisfaction

9

Satisfaction rates

10

Questionnaire

Programme Performance Grades

10

Student cohort grades

15

Grades

Performance Outcomes



Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.