new developments in external quality assurance in the ehea
Post on 03-Aug-2015
49 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
European Quality AssuranceRegister for Higher Education
New Developments in External QualityAssurance in the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA)
28 January 2015, SofijaColin Tück
Topics
1. About EQAR
2. External Quality Assurance Crossing Borders
3. Revision of the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG)
4. European Approach for QA of Joint Programmes
1. About EQAR
European Quality Assurance Registerfor Higher Education (EQAR)
Register of quality assurance agencies that complysubstantially with European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG)
Established by E4 at Ministers' requestJointly governed by stakeholders (E4, social partners)and EHEA governmentsExternal review of agencies by independent expertsIndependent Register Committee
Composed of 11 quality assurance experts Nominated by E4, but not representatives Takes all decisions related to registration
Agencies and Governments
36 quality assuranceagencies registered
32 GovernmentalMembers
2. External Quality Assurance Crossing Borders
Recognition of International QualityAssurance Activity (RIQAA) Project
Research questions: How higher education institutions (HEIs) make use of the
possibilities to request quality reviews by foreign agencies? What are the national requirements in place as well as inhibiting
factors both on the side of governments and HEIs? What are the opportunities and challenges faced by QA agencies
and HEIs in reviews across borders? Implementation (Oct 2013 – Oct 2014) with EU financial support:
Desk research on legal frameworks Survey and seminar for QA agencies Case-studies at higher education institutions Final project report & final conference
Cross-Border Openness toEQAR-Registered QA Agencies
• Countries recognisinginternationally active EQAR-registered agencies to operate aspart of the national requirementsfor external QA;
• Countries recognising foreignagencies as part of the nationalrequirements for external QA
• Countries not open to externalQA evaluation by aninternationally active EQAR-registered QA agency
Country Which agencies? Which HEIs? Which types of EQA? Recognition?EQAR-reg. National req. All Some Only JD/TNE Inst. Prog. Directly Approval
BG
DK
LI
RO
AT
PL
KZ
AL
AM
BE-Fl
LT
PL
DE*
DE*
EE
AZ
DE
FI
MD
CH
ME
NL
PT
TR
Characteristic of national legal frameworks
Number of countries outsidethe EHEA in which QAAshave carried out cross-border reviews (2009-2013)
Number of countries within the EHEA in which QAAshave carried out cross-border reviews (2009-2013)
The rationale for the review
The reviews were sometimes carried out in the context of nationalreforms or to achieve accreditation for regulated professions.
Selection of a suitable QAA
The selection process involves considerable desk research (e.g. expertise indifferent methodologies of external quality assurance, countries where agencies haveworked)
Results: perception and impact
Opportunities Challenges
Development of HEIsinternational profile
Choosing a QA that fits theirneeds (i.e. specialised agency)
Recognition of degrees
Support in the implementation ofBologna Tools
Increased stakeholderengagement
Development of QA practices andprocedures
Identify a suitable agency
Extensive preparation phase
Review in foreign language
Explaining own context
Legislative context
Complexity of the review (e.g.joint and multiple degrees)
3. Revision of theEuropean Standards and Guidelines (ESG)
Background and mandate
Current ESG adopted in 2005 Need updating taking account of developments since Need for clarification
Mandate for revision by Bucharest MinisterialCommuniqué (April 2012) Steering Group composed of ENQA, ESU, EUA, EURASHE, EI,
BUSINESSEUROPE and EQAR Drafting of the document by Drafting Group composed of QA
experts nominated by EUA, EURASHE, ESU, and ENQA Proposal endorsed by Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG) in
September 2014 Subject to approval by Ministers (Yerevan, May 2015)
Guiding principles
Keep the strengths: integrated concept andunderstanding of QA, broad applicability, broadownership
Overcome the weaknesses: vagueness, redundancies,inconsistencies
Update: ESG are part of the “Bologna Infrastructure”,taking into account recent developments in QA and HE
Guarantee adaptability to future developments Keep a balance between changing too much and too little
Scope and concepts
Focus on learning and teaching in higher education, including: Learning environment Links to research and innovation
The ESG are applicable to all types of HEIs and programmes Irrespective of mode of provision “Programme” understood in the broadest sense
Higher education institutions and quality assurance agencies Can have policies and processes for other activities beyond the scope
of the ESG Need to take account of their respective context when deciding how to
implement the ESG
Purposes of the ESG
They set a common framework for quality assurancesystems for learning and teaching at European, nationaland institutional level
They enable the assurance and improvement of quality of higher education in the European higher educationarea
They support mutual trust, thus facilitating recognitionand mobility within and across national borders
They provide information on quality assurance in theEHEA
Underpinning principles
HEIs have primary responsibility for the qualityof their provision and its assurance
QA responds to the diversity of higher educationsystems, institutions, programmes and students
QA supports the development of a quality culture QA takes into account the needs and
expectations of students, all other stakeholdersand society
Structure
Overall structure of the ESG remains:1. Standards and guidelines for internal quality assurance2. Standards and guidelines for external quality assurance3. Standards and guidelines for quality assurance agencies
Standards:set out agreed and accepted practice for QA in HE in the EHEA andshould, therefore, be taken account of and adhered to by thoseconcerned, in all types of HE provision.
Guidelines:explain why the standard is important and describe how standardsmight be implemented. They set out good practice in the relevantarea for consideration by the actors involved in quality assurance.Implementation will vary depending on different contexts.
Current ESG (2005) – Part 1 Revised ESG (2015) – Part 1
1.1 Policy and procedures for qualityassurance
1.1 Policy for quality assurance
1.2 Approval, monitoring and periodicreview of programmes and awards
1.2 Design and approval of programmes
1.3 Assessment of students 1.3 Student-centred learning, teaching andassessment
1.4 Quality assurance of teaching staff 1.4 Student admission, progression,recognition and certification
1.5 Learning resources and studentsupport
1.5 Teaching staff
1.6 Information systems 1.6 Learning resources and student support
1.7 Public information 1.7 Information management
1.8 Public information
1.9 On-going monitoring and periodicreview of programmes
1.10 Cyclical external quality assurance
Current ESG (2005) – Part 2 Revised ESG (2015) – Part 2
2.1 Use of internal quality assuranceprocedures
2.1 Consideration of internal qualityassurance
2.2 Development of external qualityassurance processes
2.2 Designing methodologies fit forpurpose
2.3 Criteria for decisions 2.3 Implementing processes
2.4 Processes fit for purpose 2.4 Peer-review experts
2.5 Reporting 2.5 Criteria for outcomes
2.6 Follow-up procedures 2.6 Reporting
2.7 Periodic reviews 2.7 Complaints and appeals
2.8 System-wide analyses
Current ESG (2005) – Part 3 Revised ESG (2015) – Part 3
3.1 Use of external quality assuranceprocedures for higher education
3.1 Activities, policy and processes forquality assurance
3.2 Official status 3.2 Official status
3.3 Activities 3.3 Independence
3.4 Resources 3.4 Thematic analysis
3.5 Mission statement 3.5 Resources
3.6 Independence 3.6 Internal quality assurance andprofessional conduct
3.7 External quality assurance criteriaand processes used by the agencies
3.7 Cyclical external review of agencies
3.8 Accountability procedures
4. European Approach for QualityAssurance of Joint Programmes
Current Situation
Frameworks for joint and single reviews have been tested (e.g.JOQAR), but are often complex and burdensome, as they needto combine national criteria: Not always quality-related, but often structural Can be contradictory (e.g. # of ECTS Master thesis) Sometimes only make sense nationally, but are difficult to understand to
foreign peers and agencies Is external QA the place to enforce national legal provisions?
The consequence: “Fragmented reviews” is often the easiest solution … … but does it reflect the joint character of the programme?
Proposal - overview
Status: BFUG mandated ad-hoc expert group to prepareproposal, endorsed by BFUG, subject to approval by Ministers
The idea: one agreed and consistent European framework forquality assurance of joint programmes
Based on the Bologna infrastructure only: Qualifications Framework (QF-EHEA) European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG)1
No additional national criteria Allow for integrated, single reviews of joint programmes Carried out by a suitable EQAR-registered QA agency
1 The proposal is compatible with the current proposal for the revised ESG.
Proposal - Standards
Standards for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes Based on QF-EHEA and ESG part 1 Applied to specific case of joint programmes:
joint development and responsibility, several locations and languages, jointprovision, …
Issues: Status, joint design and delivery Learning Outcomes Study Programme Admission and Recognition Learning, Teaching and Assessment Student Support Resources Transparency and Documentation Internal Quality Assurance
Proposal - Procedure
Procedure for External QA of Joint Programmes Based on ESG (part 2), specified for joint programmes:
panel composition, site visit(s) etc. To be used only if external QA at programme level is needed
Issues: Self-Evaluation Report Review Panel Site Visit Review Report Formal Outcome and Decision Appeals Reporting Follow-Up Periodicity
Application
Cooperating HEIsneed programme
accreditation/eval.
Cooperating HEIs are “self-accrediting”for programmes, i.e. accredited/
evaluated/audited at institutional level
Single accreditation/eval.of JP, based on agreed
Standards & Procedure,by any EQAR-reg. agency
Joint internal QA reviewof the JP (in line with ESG), may use
agreed Standards, externalreview takes account of HEIs' internal
Recognised to fulfil QA require-ments in all countries involved
European Approach, based on ESG & QF-EHEA, and Bucharest Communiqué (“recognise QA decisions of EQAR-registered agencies on joint and double degree programmes“)
Expected Impact
Joint programmes = joint quality assurance
More joint responsibility (i.e. for QA)
More involvement in QA of the whole programme
One single reference points (= the Standards)
Simplify process to create/design programmes
Conclusion
European dimension in QA is growing
Reality is sometimes ahead of regulations
Revised ESG and European Approach consolidate theEHEA framework for QA
Follow-up at national level needed after Yerevan
Thank you for your attention!
Contact: colin.tueck@eqar.eu / +32 2 234 39 11
top related