Introduction by V. de Kosinsky Victor de Kosinsky has given the project outline. The purpose of the TheNuce project is to examine the European dimension within the proposed theme and to address cross-disciplinary or administrative issues of common interest for co-operation on this theme in University Continuing Education. Such a project will have a large range of universities and can therefore be regarded as a key instrument for the enhancement of academic quality through the medium of European co-operation. This will be the very first time that a concerted project, involving 20 European countries, will address the question of UCE, examine systematically its present state of affaires and develop tools and guidelines for the rectors and presidents of universities, decision makers, European and International organisations, such as UNESCO, OCDE, Council of Europe, European governments as well as the EU Commission and Parliament to improve the provision and quality of this vital source of social and economic development that is life long learning. One of the main administrative issues of the meeting in Brussels was the shift of responsibility for the TheNuce project to Prof Alfredo Soeiro. He officially took over the chair of the TheNuce project. This impies his chairmanship of the Scientific Committee of this project in which all National Experts are participating. The main tasks of Prof Alfredo Soeiro as the European Convenor and the chair of the Scientific Committee can be identified as: assessing the existing European situation, identifying good practise and obstacles at a European level, writing European reports, developing new innovative tools in collaboration with the Scientific Committee and organising European Conferences with Host Universities. The responsibility he gained as the chair is including the responsibility for publications for example updated webpages and newsletters. Presentation of Committee Members Austria is represented in the European Scientific Committee by Dr Franz Reichl. He is the acting director of the extension centre at the Technical University in Vienna. At this institution university based continuing education has been established first in Austria. The Belgian representative is Prof Herman Baert from the Catholic University of Leuven. Prof Baert is working in the department of Educational Sciences, which is involved in an ERASMUS programme for adult education and applied for a SOCRATES theme concerning continuing education. A Danish representative is still not nominated. Dr Ossi Tuomi is the Secretary General of the Finnish Council of Directors of Centres for Continuing Education. This council was founded six years ago and since three years Dr Tuomi has been working for it. The main objective for this council has been the establishment of a common network for five million people in Finland. In addition to this he is representing Finland a a country in the Scientific Committee. The French member is Dr Michel Feutrie from the Continuing Education Service at the University of Sciences and Technologies in Lille. He is in charge of continuing education at this university and he is also working for the national CE network in France. This is a national network joined by all directors of continuing education services. The German participant in the European Scientific Committee is Dr Gernot Graeßner from the University of Bielefeld. Dr Graeßner is the academic director of the AUE, the national CE association in Germany. The AUE has been founded four years ago and is now counting 300 members from universities, adult education centres and other educational institutions to trade unions and industrial institutions. The AUE is doing on a national level what EUCEN is trying to achieve on an European level. Dr Graeßner was replaced by Albert Kommer, lecturer at the University of Bielefeld. Prof George Tsamasphyros, the Greek representative of this committee, is working in the Continuing Education Centre at the National Technical University of Athens. He was replaced at the meeting by Dionysis Rigopoulos, also working at the National Technical University. In Greece universities have the responsibility for continuing education and the improvement of it. The national expert for Iceland is Dr Margrét Björnsdottir. She is the director of the Institute of Continuing Education at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik. This institute was established 14 years ago and is the main institution in Iceland acting in the field of Continuing Education. The two most important institutions of higher education in Iceland are the University of Iceland and a university for teachers. Besides some smaller rural universities exist. Dr Tom Collins, the Irish representative participating in the European Scientific Comittee, is working in the Centre for Adult & Community Education at Staint Patrick's College in Maynooth. He is the director of Continuing Education. Prof Benedetto Matrazzo is a lecturer of mathematics at the Faculty of Economics at the University of Catania. He has been selected as the Italian member of the committee, therefore he is demanding a special support, because in Italy no specific action in the field of continuing education can be seen and defined. Italy was joining the EUCEN programme to introduce this project to universities within the country and to increase the need and the recognition of continuing education. Dr Dieter Gunz from the Fachhochschule Liechtenstein in Vaduz is participating in the Scientific Committee to represent Liechtenstein. He was replaced at the meeting by Dr Thomas Pohl, responsible for Education of Mechanical Engineering at the polytechnic. In Liechtenstein, there is a high awareness of continuing education. This will be underlined by the fact, there are over 5,000 students more involved in continuing education than full-time students enrolled. The Netherlands are represented by Dr Peter Poll from the Foundation of Continuing Education in Veterinary Medicine at the University of Utrecht, but unfortunately he has not been able to participate at the meeting due to illness. The Norwegian member is Dr Olav Vaagland from the University of Bergen. He is the director of the Continuing Education Center. In Scandinavia the situation in the field of continuing education especially university based continuing education is different, because the government has a strong impact on educational policies in general. At the moment the Norwegian government is trying to implement new plans for continuing Education. Therefore the membership in a project like TheNuce is necessary. The national expert of Poland is Prof Julian Auleytner. He is the rector of the Pedagogical University in Warszawa. After the social and political restructuring of Central Europe during the last few years, this university was founded four years ago as the largest non-government university in Poland. Therefore, a financial support by the government does hardly exist. In the field of continuing education Poland could not register any processes during the past few years. Prof Manuel Assunçao is the representative of Portugal in the European Scientiffic Committee. He is a lecturer at the University of Aveiro, an university with over 7,500 full-time students. Continuing education is still a new field in Portugal, and a special relation to continuing education is existing in the field of teachers education. Prof Assunçao is very interested in good practices throughout Europe. The Spanish member of the committee is Prof Armando Palomar, working in the Continuing Education Center at the University of Barcelona, which was established in 1993. The foundation he is working for is acting in the field of continuing education as well as in the sector of technology transfer. He gained special experiences with continuing education in the European Union Summer School, held every year in Barcelona. Sweden is represented by Prof Håkan Sandberg from the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Örebro.There is no special continuing education in Scandinavia and especially in Sweden and Denmark university based continuing education does hardly exist. There are six major universities and a high number of institutions that applied for the university status, but continuing education programmes and courses are mainly offered by private organisations. The Swiss representative is Mrs Genevieve Auroi-Jaggi, working for the Continuing Education Service at the University of Geneva. Because of other obligations, she could not be present at the meeting. Dr Michael Osborne from the University of Stirling in Scotland is representing the United Kingdom in the European Scientific Committee. He is working in the Division of Educational Policy and Development. This division is representing all forms of continuing education existing within Great Britain. Dr Osborne is also a member of the university association concerning continuing education in the UK, in which 94 universities are joined together. The European Commission TAO is represented by Ms Elizabeth Odgen, responsible for all SOCRATES & JEUNESSE concerns. The CRE, the association of European universities, EUCEN is an associate member in, is been represented by Dr Andris Barblan. He is the Secretary General of the CRE. This association is working on continuing education as well as on open and distance learning. These two fields of education cover the same thematics and ideas. The direct access to universities is of high importance. The President of EUCEN is Victor de Kosinsky. He is a professor of Applied Sciences at the University of Liège in Belgium and involved in most European educational programmes. The chairman of TheNuce, the Thematic Network of EUCEN as well as the European Scientific Committee is Prof Alfredo Soeiro from the University of Porto in Portugal. He has been the vice-president of EUCEN since three years. The EUCEN Secretary General is Prof Edward Thomas. He is a professor of Continuing Education since 1981 at the University of Bristol. Prof Thomas is also a member of the university council. The EUCEN treasurer is Prof Karel De Witte from the Catholic University in Leuven. At this university he is the co-ordinator of Continuing Education. EUCEN THENUCE - European Scientific Committee Administrative Matters Between EUCEN and the European Commission a contract as well as a financial agreement exist. EUCEN received this contract in November 1996, but the starting date of the project had to be in September. The rules of this contract has to be clear for everyone. The contract consists of 3 one-year-contracts. The EUCEN Thematic Network project is with open access for as many universities as possible. The members have to promote this network in their home countries to fill the claim of an open network. Every (member) university should develop and improve the field of continuing education. Every university expressing its interest in joining the EUCEN project is a member of it. Every university participating in the Thematic Network is a partner university. The provided list of proposed experts includes all the proposals, participating universities, received in mai 1996. More universities joining the TheNuce project implies raising the SOCRATES fund next year. Partner universities are obliged to put money into the budget as well, because the European Commission gave only half of what was asked for (200.000 ECUs). Time spent on working for TheNuce, the EUCEN Thematic Network, is not eligible. The proof of costs still contains difficulties. A list of maximum allowed costs per day was provided by the European Commission. This implies new problems, for instance contacts and meeting with other countries are necessary and still possible, but it will be harder to realise on a low budget. Some internal expenses can be paid on a limited scale as well, Which means that money for local experts can be provided. In large countries the number of universities joining TheNuce is much higher than in smaller countries, therefore the expenses of travelling around are higher as well. This implies the need of money distribution in proportion of the number of universities in the country or in the project. For countries with a National Association the situation is easier, because of the association a network is already existing. In general, every member of the European Scientific Committee agreed, a TheNuce budget is a great idea, but the representative from Portugal is demanding a common basis as general financial support and additionally proportional money to cover the travelling costs. There are still some problems with sending invoices from the universities. It differs from country to country. Only universities in countries, where the SOCRATES programme is running are able to get money without any difficulties. Another existing problem is the confusion about a standard form of invoice, it is still necessary to wait for a reply from the European Commission. European contracts always imply difficulties with banks and other financial institutions. Therefore the way of payment has to be clear. In some countries bank transfers are very expensive in other countries payments made by cheque involve problems. It is agreed on dynamic financing. All expenses are paid at the end of every trimester. The way of payment has to be arranged individually between the members of the Scientific Committee and the EUCEN treasurer. First of all it has to be clear which cost can be put into the additional budget and which costs are eligible. The way of communication has to be clear as well. The easiest, quickest and cheapest way will be a dissemination of information by E-mail. This will ease the contact between universities and national experts as well as the transfer of information between countries. The national experts should make links from the homepage of the university they are working for to the EUCEN homepage. A link to the TheNuce mail server will be possible in the end of December. The editing of a web-page (around 500 words) is important to promote TheNuce throughout Europe. This page should be included in the CRE homepage and in the homepages of the member universities. To avoid creating 25 different national images what will lead to 25 different projects, the same document should be used on every page (same style, one summary, one language, one image). As main outputs, still to be concerned with the chairman, the agreement over publication, homepages and mailserver can be seen. More money for translation is needed. The European Commission is allowing the spending on translation of only 1 ECU per line. Maybe it would be helpful to change the planning of the programme in the way that the development of tools is taking place in the second year, before translation, because the usage of tools might be easier in your own language than in another working language. Continuing education is still not a well developed fields in Europe. At the moment, there are 38 different thematic networks in Europe. Most of them are not as well represented as TheNuce in Europe and therefore willing to co-operate. This underlines the importance of fields of special expertise and shows the necessity of active contribution of everybody. Information about acivities should be transfered on a regular basis. This can be the base for the development of special expertise, so that this should take place not before the second or the third year of the project. For the end of March 1997 the first Interim Report has to be written. These drafts of national reports and the bid for the second year grant will be included in the application by the European Commission. This will give every national expert six months time for researching, preparing and writing the national report. The deadlines given in the planning were agreed, so the drafts have to disseminate in the end of February 1997 (at the latest 15 March 1997) and discussed at the next meeting on 15 March 1997. Then it has to be decided whether an additional meeting in June is necessary, to provide the national experts with more time for brainstorming. A really important question is the issue of identifying a university. What is the university's identity? How can it be defined? To solve this problem and to facilitate everybody the same approach, EUCEN has defined a university as an institution providing the highest degree in a country. But a clear and general definition of university is still missing. Non-university partners, called associated members has still to be identified, too. Universities in general do not always provide continuing education. Therefore it has to be find out why universities are not interested in continuing education and who is providing continuing education programmes instead. Continuing education should be extended to university level in every single European country, to combine the concerns and to create a unique European dimension. In several countries, Italy for instance, continuing education is hardly established yet. These countries need the support of member states where continuing education is more sophisticated already. National and European Reports Based on the National reports, the Scientific Committee specifically constituted for this Thematic Network Project, the national experts will have the task of identifying and collecting existing good practise and obstacles/problems in consultation with all partners in their own country and prepare a national report to the Committee. During the discussion about the format and the content of the national reports several questions have been raised. Some of the occured problems are still unsolved. Some approaches to sort it out were given and several suggestions were made. The reports should be longer than 25 pages. The general tenor was, 25 pages are hardly enough. First of all the given structure (pages 8 to 12, working papers) is already very detailed, so trying to fulfill the requested descrition of the actual situation will expand the limit easily. Another reason was seen in the different national circumstances. In some countries continuing education is very sophisticated at the present time, in other countries the recognition is very low and a procedure in this field is hardly established. Therefore the question was discussed, whether a general page limit is really necessary. It has to be clear, if it would be possible to put all necessary information in 25 pages and how to evaluate which kind of information is necessary and important. The headings on pages 8 to 12 are only describing the actual situation and can be seen as a link to the outside. There is no future outlook possible, no aims and objectives can be defined somewhere, but is is necessary to know the direction, to know what to do next, otherwise progress is impossible. What is the role of the national governments? This question is especially important in Central European states. What is the government doing in the field of continuing education? What is the planning of national governments to establish this field of education and to improve the actual achievements? Is there any financial support to be expected? Were there any reports written about or do any surveys exist? What kind of acting is expected by the European Union? The most important issue are people involved in continuing education. The following questions should be answered in the first place: Who are the actors? What are students, graduates, teachers, workers, unemployed doing? How can people interested in Continuing education be identified? How can staff and project participants be found? Who is participating and why? What are the opportunities and benefits for participants? How can people be put into the programme? To reply to these queries a strategy should be recommended, how to involve people (students, employees, government, teachers, stakeholders). Then it would be interesting to analyse how continuing education can cope with unemployment? The investigation of student motivation is very important, but extremely time consuming. And if it is seen the other way, establishing student motivation is probably impossible. Before a further evaluation is possible, the sectors in which continuing education happens have to be specified. In Ireland, for instance, the industry has a high requirement on continuing education in the fields of management and European languages as well as in engineering sciences. The most important question to answer in the first place will be, who is participating and who are the beneficiaries? Is continuing education addressing gender, unemployment, graduates, etc.? Another issue in this context is concerning continuing education staff. The staff working with/for continuing education has to be identified. The staff not only can be find at universities, also in the industry a lot of people are already involved in continuing education. Another aspect is the relationship between universities and professional organisations, which should be discussed soon. It is necessary to identify non-university partners to know whether to work together or against each other in the field of continuing education In general, the instructions for the layout, the format as well as the structure, were seen as a good guideline, but because of differences in reality and application within each country, a decent level of freedom in setting the reports is necessary. A slightly change of headings will be better to fit the national situation perfectly. An executive summary would be a good idea, but maybe it is not really necessary for the national reports, but definitely for the European report to summarize the main differences throughout Europe and to give a general outline. The most necessary point will be a conclusion for every national report to underline the direction and the opportunities, but most of all, to include the concerns about people. The question occured, if it is to early for a conclusion in the interim report, but nevertheless, it will be worth to think about an implementation of a conclusion. In the end everybody agreed that it is not the right time for a conclusion yet, because this chapter should contain all the achievements in the field of continuing education in every country. It has to be identified what the opportunities are. Is there a real social request, does a governmental interest exist? The points 1 and 2 (current state of university continuing education and existing good practise in use) were more or less seen as a checklist only, so the opportunity exists to add what is necessary to describe the national situation more transparently or to leave out, what cannot be filled by the national expert, because it is not existing in several countries. The existing problems and obstacles as well as the identification of new needs and the measures of it should be seen as a guideline, too. It has not to be compulsory. One of the main practical decisions at the meeting was the combination of chapters two and three as well as chapters four and five. The reason for combining these chapters is more or less that 'existing good practise in UCE' and 'existing problems and obstacles to UCE' examine and cover the same field of information. The identification of new needs implies the identification of measures to be taken to satisfy these needs in continuing education. Therefore, combining the chapters four and five is justified. (see Attachment) A SWOT analysis as the basis of the national reports seems to be unavoidable. Descriptive elements are necessary, but it has to be handled carefully, otherwise the direction will get lost. A too detailed desription filled with definitions and statistics will easily lose aims and tasks out of view. Therefore once again, a minimum and maximum number of pages should be defined (around 25 pages per country). Reduction to 25 pages might help to lose precision, because concentrating on objectives and needs as well as on obstacles, seems impossible in this limit. Liechtenstein, for instance, will be able to write a report in regard to the provided structure, because only one institution of higher education is involved, but in Finland they will concentrate on good practices and in several countries such as Austria, Sweden and Belgium, the main issue has to be the outlook and not a discription of the actual situation, because descriptive data is either too detailed or hard to find. It has to be born in mind that the issues about people are in the fore, so it should be avoided to become too technical and to make the greatest effort in description. It is worth trying to find out, which universities have already a great approach in continuing education. Is it possible to use their experiences and results and to develop their outputs any further in a European diretion? The following statements can be seen as some general agreements about the format of the European report, but it has to be said that it is really difficult to agree on a European format before the national reports are written. The major content of this report seen as basis for a further strategy has to be a European view based on national reports and on personal opinions of national experts. Furthermore contribution is necessary, that is why the national inputs are of highest importance. This implies that the title and the direction of the programme has to be totally clear. It has to be unambiguous, whether the development of European co-operation in the field of continuing education or the introduction of a new active European dimension of continuing education should be in the fore. The first version of national reports should be circulated be E-mail, therefore an agreement on the format is necessary. To summarize the outcome of the first meeting of the European Scientific Committee, the main ideas are listed below. Some of the problems are mentioned earlier, therefore here only an outline of the most important points is given. EUCEN and the Scientific Committee is meant to work on a European level, but the most interesting question was, what is the European dimension and how can it be reached or developed? The European dimension is definitely not just a single element. It will be the result of a long process of development, because everybody has to broaden his mind and a change has to go on. First of all you have to look in a Euopean way and then in an national way, but at the moment, everything is done in a national way, and afterwards the implementation on a European level is tried. "Once we know what is done in other countries, we can pick up what we like from others and implement it. Therefore the European dimension is characterised by a greater richness and diversity." (Ted Thomas) But the European dimension should start from local experiences, because a different approach in every country to reach the same aim, can make it even more interesting and working in a better way, because of the usage of old national habits. Therefore, the European dimension can be seen as a result of cohesion. A unique direction is absolutely necessary, otherwise the co-operation between different European countries will not work efficiently and it will lead nowhere. That can be seen as the reason why it is necessary to identify the objectives, opportunities and obstacles of approaches to fit in the definition of a European dimension. The European dimension should include the transfer of good practices, implying a relationship between continuing education and life-long learning. The European dimension should be discussed after writing the national reports, because after identifying the national situation concerning continuing education it is obvious what to expect, what have to be the next necessary steps. The European dimension should be seen as a unique link between countries, but this implies different nation approaches. These differences might be helpful for the identification of good practices, which can be transfered by information and for the development of collaboration, especially on university based continuing education. Therefore a closer contact between countries and universities in different states is needed urgently to widen the exchange of information in the field of continuing education. These are the necessary circumstances to improve the quality of continuing education as well as the European framework. Another important step in the right direction should be focussing on European policy, because as a final result the policy of continuing education has to be implemented in the European policy. There is a need for an European approach, because at the moment it is not easy or better said it is hardly possible to implement Spanish good practice in Germany. It would not work there in the same way. Therefore it is necessary to look at continuing education from a different point of view, and to take some distance, because it will ease the situation and help to find the European approach, which should fit every single European country and its educational policy. The first time should be spend on analysing the main ideas in order to identify practices to improve and/or develop tools to work on a European basis in continuing education. Therefore, it might be easier to think in a national way, to work on a national level first, before starting in the European dimension. The main focus should be on innovative practices in the field of continuing education, because introducing a new dimension on the scale of a European level would be to complicated and to time consuming before the national reports are written, discussed and analysed. Another obstacle is seen by the limited page numbers of the national reports, which will make it harder to include a European approach. The reason is seen in the detailed descriptive figures required. In the implementation phase of the project it has to be concentrated on the identification of national good practices and activities in the field of continuing education, which could be exported to other states throughout Europe and which are seen as a link to European collaboration and can be transfered later. But therefore it is necessary to find out, how to transfer it and first of all, how to judge, what is necessary and useful for whole Europe. Because of the impossibility to focus on two points at the same time, it has to be clear whether the main interest of national experts has to be devoted to the European aspect or to the process of identifying national customs, practices and activities in the educational sector. The simplest and clearest strategy can be as followed: analysing the actual situation in the field of continuing education in the member states of EUCEN in the first year. This will allow the development of technical issues during the second year and implies the implementation of tools in the third year of the programme. Attachment "TheNuce" Thematic Network Project in European University Continuing Education Decision of the Meeting of the European Scientific Committee Saturday, 7 December, 1996, Brussels National Reports - Contents It is important that the National Reports should not be simple technical presentations of the situation in the respective countries. They must be documents which, once consolidated in a European Report, can be addressed to decision makers, politicians, ministers, governments, the European Union, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, UNESCO, OECD, and all those concerned with University Continuing Education in Europe and even beyond, to contribute to the development of a European Education Policy on UCE. After all EUCEN's aims are: _ to enable its member universities to serve most effectively the people of Europe, particularly in their own regions, through the provision of high quality continuing education by the exchange of good practice and innovation; and _ to influence the development of university continuing education policy throughout Europe EUCEN's definition of University Continuing Education (UCE) is: «..any form of education, vocational or general, resumed after an interval following the continuous initial education. » And EUCEN's definition of Universities is: «...educational establishments delivering in their respective country the highest university level degree or diploma. » The purpose of the TheNuce project is to examine the current situation in order to address cross-disciplinary or administrative issues of common interest for co-operation on this theme in University Continuing Education. Such a project must have a lasting and widespread impact on the development and management of continuing education programmes across a large range of universities and will therefore be regarded as a key instrument for the enhancement of academic quality through the medium of European co-operation. Within the European Scientific Committee the National Experts will have the task of identifying and collecting existing good practice and obstacles/problems in consultation with all partners in their own country and prepare a national report to the Committee. Tentative list of items to be included in the National Reports (to be used rather as a "check list only) : 1. Current State of University Continuing Education 1.1.Introduction 1.1.1. Definition of CE in the country 1.1.2. Historical introduction 1.1.3. Outline of the higher education system in the country 1.1.4. Number of universities (EUCEN definition) 1.1.5. Student numbers - full-time/CE 1.2. Organisational Arrangement of CE in Universities 1.2.1. Centralised/dispersed/mixed 1.2.2. Who are the "actors": students, users, market mechanisms? 1.3. Programmes 1.3.1. Subject range 1.3.2. Format range (short, long - credit/non-credit, distance learning) 1.3.3. Which sectors of UCE are growing and which ones are declining? 1.4. Quality 1.4.1. National/local arrangements 1.4.2. Types of diplomas, certificates delivered 1.4.3. Means of Assessment 1.4.4. Means of Quality control 1.5. Financial Arrangements 1.5.1. Institutional support for CE 1.5.2. State/regional support for CE 1.5.3. Other 1.6. Motivation of CE Staff 1.6.1. Who is providing UCE? How many are from outside the universities? 1.6.2. Financial incentives 1.6.3. Academic recognition 1.6.4. Administrative support 1.6.5. Other means 1.7. Status of CE 1.7.1. Visibility of CE on a local, regional, national and European level 1.7.2. Accreditation of qualifications 1.7.3. Contacts with industry, employers, professions 1.8. Other Providers of Continuing Education 1.8.1. Types of providers 1.8.2. Types of diplomas, certificates delivered 1.8.3. Means of Assessment 1.8.4. Means of Quality control 1.8.5. Links with Higher Education 1.9. National/Regional Policy(es) on CE 1.9.1. Role of national/regional governments 1.9.2. Effects of the "autonomy" of the University 1.10. European Dimension in UCE 1.10.1. European strategies/vision for UCE 1.10.2. European Cooperation in UCE 1.10.3. European Studies in UCE 1.10.4. Use of Distance Education 1.10.5. Recognition of non-national qualifications 1.10.6. European Diplomas 1.10.7. Implementing the European Commission White Paper 1.11. Number of Universities consulted in the Country 1.11.1. EUCEN member Universities (List in Appendix) 1.11.2. Other Universities in the Country (List in Appendix) 1.12. National CE Organisations 1.12.1. Functions 1.12.2. Names and addresses of Secretary/Presidents 1.13. References (in Appendix) 2. Existing Problems/Obstacles and Good Practices in UCE (The identification of Existing Problems/Obstacles and Good Practices has to take into consideration the central importance of University Continuing Education to the creation and development of Europe Europe and the TheNuce Project's 2nd and 3rd year programme) 2.1. Organisational Arrangement of CE in Universities 2.1.1. Are existing innovative and transferable tools identifiable? 2.1.2. Workplace learning 2.1.3. Links with professions 2.1.4. Which sectors of UCE are growing and which ones are declining? 2.2. Programmes 2.2.1. Are existing innovative and transferable tools identifiable? 2.2.2. Workplace learning 2.2.3. Links with professions 2.3. Quality 2.3.1. National/local arrangements 2.3.2. Types of diplomas, certificates delivered 2.3.3. Means of Assessment 2.3.4. Means of Quality control 2.4. Financial Arrangements 2.4.1. Institutional support for CE 2.4.2. State/regional support for CE 2.4.3. Other 2.5. Motivation of CE Staff 2.5.1. Who is providing UCE? How many are from outside the universities? 2.5.2. Financial incentives 2.5.3. Academic recognition 2.5.4. Administrative support 2.5.5. Other means 2.6. Status of CE 2.6.1. Visibility of CE on a local, regional, national and European level 2.6.2. Accreditation of qualifications 2.6.3. Contacts with industry, employers, professions 2.7. European Dimension in UCE 2.7.1. European strategy/vision of universities in UCE 2.7.2. European Cooperation in UCE 2.7.3. European Studies in UCE 2.7.4. Use of Distance Education 2.7.5. Recognition of non-national qualifications 2.7.6. European Diplomas 2.7.7. Implementing the European Commission White Paper 2.7.8. Proposals for a European Education Policy on UCE 2.8. National CE Organisations 2.9. National/Regional Policy(es) on CE 2.9.1. Regional dimension of UCE 2.9.2. Role of national/regional governments 2.9.3. Effects of the "autonomy" of the University 2.10. "Success Stories" 2.10.1. Are existing innovative and transferable tools identifiable? 2.10.2. Ideas for cooperation 2.10.3. Stimulating growth and quality 3. New Needs in UCE and Measures to be taken to satisfy the needs identified (The identification of new needs and measures has to take into consideration the central importance of University Continuing Education to the creation and development of Europe and the TheNuce Project's 2nd and 3rd year programme) 3.1. Organisational Arrangement of CE in Universities 3.1.1. What are the constraints and opportunities 3.1.2. What is the demand and the social justification for UCE? 3.1.3. Are existing innovative and transferable tools identifiable? 3.1.4. Workplace learning 3.1.5. Links with professions 3.1.6. Which sectors of UCE are growing and which ones are declining? 3.2. Programmes 3.2.1. What are the constraints and opportunities 3.2.2. What is the demand and the social justification for UCE? 3.2.3. Are existing innovative and transferable tools identifiable? 3.2.4. Workplace learning 3.2.5. Links with professions 3.2.6. Which sectors of UCE are growing and which ones are declining? 3.3. Quality 3.3.1. National/local arrangements 3.3.2. Types of diplomas, certificates delivered 3.3.3. Means of Assessment 3.3.4. Means of Quality control 3.4. Financial Arrangements 3.4.1. Institutional support for CE 3.4.2. State/regional support for CE 3.4.3. Other 3.5. Motivation of CE Staff 3.5.1. Who is providing UCE? How many are from outside the universities? 3.5.2. Financial incentives 3.5.3. Academic recognition 3.5.4. Administrative support 3.5.5. Other means 3.6. Status of CE 3.6.1. Visibility of CE on a local, regional, national and European level 3.6.2. Accreditation of qualifications 3.6.3. Contacts with industry, employers, professions 3.7. European Dimension in UCE 3.7.1. European Strategy of the Universities 3.7.2. European Cooperation in UCE 3.7.3. European Studies in UCE 3.7.4. Use of Distance Education 3.7.5. Recognition of non-national qualifications 3.7.6. European Diplomas 3.7.7. Implementing the European Commission White Paper 3.7.8. Proposals for a European Education Policy on UCE 3.8. National CE Organisations 3.9. National/Regional Policy(es) on CE 3.9.1. Regional dimension of UCE 3.9.2. Role of national/regional governments 3.9.3. Effects of the "autonomy" of the University 3.10. "Success Stories" 3.10.1. Are existing innovative and transferable tools identifiable? 3.10.2. Ideas for cooperation 3.10.3. Stimulating growth and quality 4. CONCLUSIONS and matrix of problems/proposals with gradings avsoeiro@garfield.fe.up.pt Page Last Updated on - March 1998