enhancing quality of finnish higher education – impact of institutional audits 2005-2012 senior...
TRANSCRIPT
Enhancing quality of Finnish
higher education – Impact of
institutional audits 2005-2012
Senior advisor Kirsi HiltunenFinnish Higher Education Evaluation Council, FINHEEC13 June 2013, Glasgow
Outline of the presentation
• The Finnish QA system
• Impact of the audits
‒ General remarks on the first audit round
‒ State of quality management in the Finnish HEIs
‒ HEIs’ own views on the impact of the audit
• Conclusions
• Questions to be answered
‒ How effective has the national audit model been?
‒ Are there differences between the two higher education sectors?
‒ Is an audit, as the main national evaluation tool, the most fit for purpose and
effective enough to assure the quality of higher education in Finland?
The main source material • Four studies funded and/or commissioned by FINHEEC on the impact of audits
‒ a study conducted at FINHEEC: Moitus, S (2010)
‒ a study funded by FINHEEC but conducted by a freelance researcher:
Talvinen, K (2012)
‒ two studies funded by FINHEEC but conducted at universities:
Ala-Vähälä, T (2011); Haapakorpi, A (2011)
• Institutions’ follow-up reports on the impact of the audit and their post-audit
development work (2009-2013)
‒ Reports submitted to FINHEEC three years after the audit
• Feedback gathered from the audited institutions
FINHEEC (The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council)
• An independent expert body
• The Council ‒ 12 members (universities,
universities of applied sciences, students, working life)
‒ appointed for a 4-year period by the Ministry of Education and Culture from candidates proposed by HEIs and student organisations
• The Secretariat (11 officers)
• Full operational independence• Financed by the Ministry of Education and Culture
• Full member of ENQA (European Association of Quality Assurance Agencies)• Listed in EQAR (European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education)
FINHEEC audit
• Finland’s response to the requirements of the Bologna process to develop a
comprehensive national higher education QA system
• Institutional approach – the same model for both higher education sectors
(universities and universities of applied sciences)
• Comprehensive approach – covers research, education and social impact – and
overall quality management
• External assessment of internal QA - reflects institutions’ autonomy and
responsibility, and a large measure of trust
• HEIs are responsible for the quality of their operations
• Each institution develops its quality system based on its own needs and goals
Enhancement-led approach
• Aim to support HEIs in the enhancement of quality and establishment of quality culture
by (1) producing information to assist HEIs to develop their activities, and by (2)
exchanging and disseminating good practices among other HEIs
• As a result of the audit, an institution either passes the audit and receives a quality
label or is subjected to a subsequent re-audit
• Institutions are neither rewarded for a positive result nor punished for a negative
one – there are no financial incentives or loss of degree-awarding powers
• No ranking among institutions is established on the basis of audits
The first audit round 2005-2012
Universities
of
applied
sciences Universities
All Finnish higher
education institutions
Publication year of
the audit report
Total number
of audits
Re-audit
decisions
Re-audit
decisions
Re-audit
decisions, total
% of re-audit
decisions/all audits
2005 2 0 0%
2006 6 2 2 33%
2007 5 1 1 20%
2008 6 2 2 33%
2009 10 1 1 2 20%
2010 8 1 1 13%
2011 9 1 1 11%
2012 3 0 0%
Total 49 4 5 9 18%
General remarks on the first audit round
• Nearly one in five audits (18%) resulted in a re-audit decision
‒ 14% of the UASs vs. 24% of the universities
‒ All but one (university) passed its re-audit
• The audits have directly affected thousands of persons in higher education
(preparations; site visits - well over 100 interviewees in each audit; national experts)
• Feedback from the audited HEIs
‒ On the whole, HEIs quite satisfied with the audits; satisfaction remained relatively
constant throughout the first audit round
‒ UASs slightly more satisfied than universities
‒ The management and central administration had the most positive view on the
quality work in both higher education sectors
General features of quality systems
• Most HEIs use the Deming cycle as the conceptual
framework of quality management
• Almost all institutions are run as process-based
organisations
• Some HEIs apply widely recognised quality standards and models (e.g. the European
Foundation for Quality Management model, or ISO standard), while others have
developed their own quality assessment methods
• All HEIs that passed the audit have a quality manual or respective document
• Most of the HEIs have hired specific quality personnel – active national networks
• As a rule, the management in HEIs is highly committed to quality work
• Students are widely involved in the institutions’ quality work
• Specific procedures such as internal audits and joint events to foster quality culture
Quality management of HEIs’ basic duties • Quality management of degree education in the best shape
‒ Various procedures for collecting feedback, links between teaching and research
emphasised, external and internal evaluations of degree programmes, procedures
to ensure the pedagogical quality of education, tutoring and mentoring systems for
new students and staff, alumni systems, personal study plans etc.
‒ International and postgraduate students not as involved as other students
‒ Quality management of doctoral education a common development area
• Quality management of research generally quite well taken care of
‒ Definition of strategic research profiles, process descriptions, project management
guidelines, feedback systems, various internal and external evaluation and
rewarding systems
‒ UASs lack mechanisms to monitor the quality of research
• Quality management of societal impact
‒ A need for clarifying discussion on what is meant by social impact and how it
should be measured
HEIs’ views on the impact of the audit (1/2)
Improvement of management and feedback systems
• Improvement of management systems – strengthening and gelling of the strategic work
• Quality management better linked to strategic planning and management as well as
operations management
• Several UASs report on the link between the quality system and the improved results
of their activities (regarding, e.g., dropout rate, progression and completion of studies)
• Improvement of feedback systems (student, working life and alumni)
• Participation of students and external stakeholders in the development of operations
enhanced and supported
• Post-audit development of quality systems linked with the on-going organisational
reforms and renewals of operations management
HEIs’ views on the impact of the audit (2/2)
New operational and quality cultures
• More consistent and clarified procedures
• Operations planned and developed on a more long-term basis and more extensively
from the premises of students and external stakeholders
• The establishment and development of quality culture enhanced by improving and
systematising communication within institutions and to external stakeholders
• Dissemination of good practices within and between HEIs
• More cooperation within institutions between different units and between HEIs
• Benchmarking activities have increased
• New evaluation cultures – external evaluations now seen as more significant tools in
the development (international evaluations utilised at different organisational levels)
Conclusions (1/2)
• The Finnish audit system can be considered a success – audits as enhancement-led
evaluations have received wide acceptance
‒ HEIs and FINHEEC mutually trust one another, communication open and
supportive
‒ All Finnish HEIs have established comprehensive quality systems
• Audits have contributed to the development of Finnish higher education by
‒ Changing quality and operational cultures in HEIs and by increasing cooperation
within the whole field of higher education
‒ Fostering a sense of community and a general commitment to the institution
‒ Inclining HEIs to learn from one another and share information and good practices
with one another, also between the two higher education sectors – mutual
understanding and collaboration between the sectors have been enhanced
Conclusions (2/2)
• Evident that the principle of enhancement-led evaluation should be fostered at least
in some form and scale in the future, too
• The versatility of FINHEEC’s different evaluation types should be fostered – in
addition to the process-oriented audits, there is a need for evaluations that deal with
the quality of education itself
• Due to the on-going changes in higher education, further considerations needed to
explicate the current roles and responsibilities of the actors in the national QA
system: the Ministry of Education and Culture – HEIs – FINHEEC
• Finland a small country – a need for more cooperation and coordination between
various evaluation organisations and which cross the boundaries between education
sectors and between education and research.
