A common language for education

Concepts instead of labels

Radboud is not the only institution searching for a shared language. “On the one hand you see glossaries emerging, on the other hand technical standards such as OOAPI (Open Education API). During our assessments we discovered that, at its core, the problem is not a technical issue, but rather that people simply do not understand each other. That insight became the starting point for the lexicon.”

The lexicon is built on concepts rather than labels. One programme may speak of subjects with modules, another works with minors and courses. At first glance these appear to be different structures that make harmonisation difficult. “The lexicon shows, however, that a ‘subject’ and a ‘course’ can essentially represent the same concept,” says Pien. “In a system you can then agree to call it ‘course’, even if each programme uses its own term. In this way you don’t have to force programmes to change their vocabulary, but you do facilitate the conversation.”

Step by step, the lexicon is finding its place within the organisation. In preparing the tender for the new curriculum information system, the team is creating ‘process maps’ that show what curriculum design can look like, from redesigning a course to revising at programme or faculty level. Roles and responsibilities are defined, and the same terminology is applied consistently across the process maps.

“It saves a great deal of time, because you no longer lose half the meeting to a kind of Babylonian confusion of tongues,” Pien explains. “You think you’re talking about the same thing, when in fact you’re not. With the lexicon, discussions become more productive.”

Open to feedback

For information managers and architects, the lexicon is already useful in discussions and project preparations. But programmes and policy staff find that, in its current form, the lexicon is not yet sufficiently accessible for independent use.

Pien emphasises that the project is still evolving: “I’m very open to feedback, because we’re not there yet. It’s an iterative process in which we learn and adjust as we go. We have a core working group of seven people, but transparency is key. The platform is public, and experiences are shared through a LinkedIn group."

Broader perspective

The experiences in Nijmegen are not unique. Elsewhere too, people are asking how programmes and faculties, or even whole institutions, can collaborate without losing their individuality. “Universities are organisations where autonomy is a core value. That is something to be cherished,” says Pien. “At the same time, structural collaboration is often difficult. With the lexicon we are looking for the golden mean: creating a shared language while preserving academic freedom.”

Meanwhile, the lexicon is also finding its way to other organisations and networks, for instance through presentations at conferences. Pien also sees opportunities at European level: through the Neurotech Alliance, she is looking at what the lexicon can contribute within a European university alliance.

Over the coming years, Pien sees the lexicon continuing to grow into a tool that is widely used. "Our ambition is that we really start listening to each other and move forward together," she says.