gemma rauret director quality assurance for enhancement: a case study of aneca (spain) inqaahe...
Post on 13-Jan-2016
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Gemma Rauret
Director
Quality Assurance for Quality Assurance for Enhancement: a case study of Enhancement: a case study of
ANECA (Spain)ANECA (Spain)
INQAAHE Conference 2009INQAAHE Conference 2009
30st March – 2nd April 200930st March – 2nd April 2009
Abu Dhabi, United Arab EmiratesAbu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Tensions and challenges in the evaluation process
Simple vs. diversified models for assuring quality
The Spanish model for quality assurance
The new quality assurance approach
Table of contentsTable of contents
1. Tensions and challenges in the Tensions and challenges in the evaluation process in QAevaluation process in QA
1. Is it feasible the evaluation
enhancement-oriented model?
2. Is it possible to harmonize an
evaluation enhancement-oriented to
another accreditation-oriented?
3. How to integrate an evaluation for
accreditation with an evaluation for
enhancement?
Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges
Accountability vs. Quality Enhancement Governmental Regulation vs. Self-regulation Performance Indicators vs. Expert Opinion Accreditation vs. On-going Quality Enhancement
Can both approaches be integrated?
Purist perspective vs. Practical position Stakeholders’ claims Accreditation legitimacy Integration in a supra-national framework : the
EHEA
Tensions in the two approaches in the evaluation
Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges
• Higher Education Institutions: HEIs are responsible for the quality of their
educational offer HEIs must be able to show quality both at the
national and International level A quality culture within HEIs must be promoted Quality of academic programmes for students
must be developed and enhanced
Basic principles that rule the ESG
Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges
• Society: Society’s interests concerning quality of
higher education must be assured and safeguarded
Process: Quality assurance accountability-oriented is compatible Quality assurance accountability-oriented is compatible
with with enhancementenhancement
Processes should be compatible with diversity and innovation
Transparency and external experts are significant within the quality assurance processes
Processes allowing HEIs can show their responsibility concerning accountability for both public and private funds received should be developed
Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges
Scope and Goals of the Evaluation: National Higher Education Academic Rules Programme and/or institutional accreditation Users’ protection Public access to the information about programmes
and institutions Quality improvement and enhancement
2. Simple versus diversified models Simple versus diversified models
for assuring qualityfor assuring quality
Simple or different evaluation models? External and internal determining factors
Reality and evaluation culture of the system Complexity, volume, tradition and legal frameworks Problems to be undertaken Potential of the organization to accomplish the evaluation
– Internal quality units in the HEIs and
– quality assurance agencies involved in the process
Common aspects of both models An agency that co-ordinates the process A self-evaluation report A peer site-visit A public final report
Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges
Stages where different problems will be undertaken/ the role played by the quality assurance/nature of the external review
Doubts regarding educational standards/ identification of programs placed under that threshold/ accreditation
Doubts regarding the efficiency of either the Higher Education system or the HEIs / Public accountability and creating awareness in institutions/ranking or report to state
Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges
Doubts regarding Innovation capacity and QA capacity / stimulate self-regulation capacity of institutions. Public accountability/Audit to the institution
Need to stimulate sustainable Quality Culture in Institutions/ Improvement based on self regulation or public accountability /audit report to the institution
Decreasing Comparative Transparency across HE Systems/stakeholder information/ publication of performance indicators
Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges
What kind of agency can provide responses to the challenges set up?
The nature of an agency : learning organization shared know-how critical and independent thought
The technology of the agency: Guides, standards and benchmarks
The process Interaction with the HEI: moment and type of
interaction Ensuring the presence of different stakeholders
Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges
Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges
What kind of profile, training and role place the experts and agency’s staff in evaluation?
Experts
– Highly qualified
– Trained on the evaluation model to be applied
– International experience Agency’s staff
– Highly qualified staff
– On-going training: networking with other agencies’ staff
– Network of collaborating experts
3. The Spanish model for quality The Spanish model for quality
assuranceassurance
Spanish Higher Education System
UniversitiesUniversities
7575 universities all over Spain universities all over Spain
(50 public – 25 private)(50 public – 25 private)
Public universities – 1.326.734
Private universities – 134.743
Total number of students enrolled 1.461.477
The Spanish SettingThe Spanish Setting
Programme evaluation for improvement was
introduced but without consequences (1985-2005).
The initial reaction was very stimulated although due to the lack of consequences the impact was rather unequal.
A stage without consequences is useful but cannot be extended for an indefinite period.
This stage led to the creation of QA agencies at the regional and the national level and QA units in HEIs.
The Spanish model for QA
The Spanish Setting (2)The Spanish Setting (2)
The EHEA and the quality assurance (2007 onwards).
Problem to be undertaken and evaluation model
Ensuring that all official programs fulfilled the standards established in the legal framework.
Adopting the accreditation model with a few elements enhance-oriented
Adopting a national evaluation model for the teaching staff
Mandatory for bachelor and master programs
Implies funding and recognition of degrees for the public service
ANECA and other regional agencies are responsible for the external evaluation
The Spanish model for QA
Design
Programme design
UNIVERSITY
The programme accreditation processThe programme accreditation process
Accreditation
Fulfilment evaluation
Council Univ.
Follow-up
Implementation
UNIVERSItY
ANECA and regional Agencies
Ex – ante Evaluation
Verification
Council Univ.
ANECA
The Spanish model for QA
• How ANECA has undertaken the new challenge? ANECA as a learning organisation
Innovation Area Involvement at the International level
ENQA, ECA, RIACES and INQAAHE Taking part in innovative projects
ANECA’s technology
What Tools? Guide for universities Guide for evaluation
Methodology, standards and benchmarks
How are they created? Innovation Unit Technical Committee for validation Approval by the Board of Directors
The Spanish model for QA
The methodology: An evaluation procedure in three stages
Provisional Report oriented towards the fulfilment of the standards and improvement
Response of universities and enhancement Final Report on the fulfilment of the
standards
ESG Fulfilment
External reviewed in 2007: ENQA full membership
Included in the European Register for Quality Assurance Agencies (EQAR): December 2008
The Spanish model for QA
Profile and training of the agents involved in the evaluation Experts profile
Academic peers: expertise in QA, in programme evaluation, in International teams and members of the university staff
Professional Experts in the discipline specific field Students coming from the discipline specific field at the
suggestion of student unions Experts in quality assurance
Training Specific training sessions in the agency On the university system of Spain On the running of the evaluation procedure
The Spanish model for QA
Profile, training and role of the technical staff Profile
Expert in quality assurance Young academic staff with experience in quality assurance of
higher education Training subjects
On the university system of Spain On the running of the evaluation procedure On quality assurance Systems and the application of standards Data processing
Role played by the technical staff of ANECA Secretary of the committee Improve the reference book to be used by the Experts in the
committees Co-ordinates the organisation of the meetings
The Spanish model for QA
4. The new quality assurance The new quality assurance
approachapproach
The main features:
– Strengthening the internal QA system of HEI
– A public information system– To give importance to
improvement plans– Evaluation agencies should
adopt a consultancy role– Funding as an incentive for on-going
improvement
The new QA approach
The internal QA Systems of the institution Internal systems of the HEI are the only element really
sustainable
Based on on-going improvement Towards international quality levels
Best practices for benchmarking
Reporting on progresses Improvement of teaching quality
Quality system core
Staff involvement at all levels Public information system
Characteristics of the programs Planning and implementation of the learning process Performance indicators
The new QA approach
Quality improvement plan
Characteristics
Focused on learning quality enhancement Built up from self assessment Relevant actions for achieving the
improvement goals Feasible: human and material resources Adequate time
Institutional commitment Accountability of results
The new QA approach
Conclusions remarks
The evaluation approach improvement- and voluntary-oriented creates COMMITMENT
The evaluation approach accountability- and mandatory-oriented only creates FULFILMENT
Conclusions
Both are necessary components for generating
a quality culture
www.aneca.eswww.aneca.es
Thanks for your Thanks for your attentionattention
top related