2008 04 06 Bologna Presentasjon, Studenter Kun Bilder[1]

  • 414 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
414
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The Bologna Process NOKUT Senior Adviser Tone Flood Strøm
  • 2. The Bologna Process
    • 47countries
    • EU Commission
    • Consultative memb.
  • 3. European Process
    • Not an EU initiated or EU governed process
    • No supranational element
    • Bottom-up process
  • 4.
    • Aim: Establish the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010.
    • Structure:
      • Ministerial meetings every second year (Bologna 1999, Prague 2001, Berlin 2003, Bergen 2005, London 2007, next Leuven 2009), new goals
      • Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG)
      • BFUG-Board – Norway -> June 2009
      • Bologna Secretariat
    Bologna-prosessen
  • 5. Action Lines The Bologna Declaration 1. System of easily readable and comparable degrees 2. System essentially based on two main cycles 3. System of credits 4. Promotion of mobility 5. European co-operation in quality assurance 6. Tne European dimension The Prague Communiqué 7. Lifelong Learning 8. Higher education institutions and students 9. Promoting the attractiveness of the EHEA The Berlin Communiqué 10. Doctoral studies and the synergy between EHEA and ERA The Bergen Communiqué - The External Dimension Overarching - The Social Dimension
  • 6. Working method
    • Work programme
    • BFUG Working Groups
    • Official Bologna seminars and Bologna related events
    • Stocktaking - important for keeping the momentum of the process
  • 7.
    • Taking stock of actual achievements so far
    • Degree system
    • Quality Assurance
    • Recognition
    • Lifelong learning
    • Joint degrees
    • 2009 – The Social Dimension as well, first time
    Bologna Process Stocktaking
  • 8. Bologna Process ; stocktaking 2007 Joint degr. LLL Recognition Quality assurance Degree system                        
  • 9.
    • Mobility – Work within our respective governments
    • Quality Assurance – The Register
    • The Global Dimension – Strategy adopted
    • Stocktaking – Include mobility and the social dimension
    • 2010 and beyond – BFUG to put forward proposals for the Process after 2010
    The Bologna Process towards 2009; The London Communiqué
  • 10. 2010 and beyond
    • BFUG to put forward proposals for the Process after 2010
    • All believe in continued co-operation after 2010.
      • What do we anticipate from continued collaboration,
      • how should it be organised
      • in what areas should we continue our co-operation
    • Independent assessment of the Process evaluating the overall progress
  • 11. 2010 and beyond
    • First discussion in BFUG
    • Seminar in Ghent on this topic
    • Extraordinary BFUG-meeting 24 -25 June
    • Need new goals, give added value by reformulating our vision in order to keep the drive and the momentum of the Process
  • 12. 2010 and beyond
    • Goals:
      • Noticeable improvement in the quality of European higher education -> Europe stronger globally speaking.
      • The national systems of higher education should communicate in order to facilitate mobility for students and staff within Europe and beyond.
      • Systems of quality assurance and quality improvement in all countries in order to protect students from institutions and study programmes of poor and dubious quality.
      • Europe will emerge as more attractive for good students and staff seeking international experience.
      • At the same time keep our responsibility towards the poorer countries of the world in mind - must not create a “festung Bologna
  • 13.
    • National Bologna Group:
      • Representatives from the higher education sector
      • National Report
    • The Quality Reform ; national follow-up of the Bologna elements
    The Bologna Process in Norway
  • 14. NOKUT
    • The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT).
    • Est Jan 1 2003
    • Independent governmental agency
      • The Ministry may not instruct NOKUT in other matters than what is laid down in law or regulations
      • The Ministry may not revise the Agency’s accreditations judgments.
    • Purpose: Control an develop the quality of Norwegian higher education and tertiary vocational education
  • 15. Tasks
      • accreditation of study programmes
      • revision of accreditations given
      • Institutional accreditation
      • overall evaluation of Norwegian higher education
      • evaluation of the institutions quality assurance systems (audits)
      • General approval of education given by institution not regulated by the Act relating to higher education
      • -> Rules of conduct, standards and criteria laid down in the Act on Higher Education, Regulations by the Ministry and NOKUT.
  • 16. Main elements
    • Main elements of the Norwegian Quality Assurance System:
      • • Responsibility of the quality rests with the institutions themselves
      • • Accredited institutions authority to establish new programmes on different levels depending on institutional category.
      • • The institutions may apply for change of institutional category
  • 17. Main elements cont.
      • • Institutions required to have a satisfactory internal quality assurance system. Will be assessed by NOKUT in six year cycles
      • • The Ministry and NOKUT may initiate to control the quality through:
        • o Revisions of accreditation already given
        • o Evaluations with the aim to assess quality
      • • The system is based on confidence in the institutions.
  • 18. Tasks
      • Evaluate and pass judgment on the institutions’ internal quality assurance through quality audits, carried out in regular cycles
      • Make all accreditation decisions that go beyond the institutions’ self-accrediting powers. Decisions cannot be modified by any other authority.
      • Institutional accreditation
  • 19. Tasks
      • Carry out evaluations with the purpose of revising specific accreditation. Accreditations may be revoked or suspended for the entire institutions or for individual programmes
      • Carry out other types of evaluations with the general purpose of investigating, assessing and developing the quality of higher education in Norway. The Ministry may instruct NOKUT to undertake such evaluations.
  • 20. Tasks cont.
      • Issue general recognition
      • Accreditation of courses and programmes in tertiary vocational education
    • The evaluations and accreditations shall be conducted by experts appointed by NOKUT
      • Detailed criteria for the competence of the experts and for their appointment developed
  • 21. Evaluation of NOKUT
    • Commissioned by the Ministry
    • Two aims:
      • Examine whether NOKUT meets the “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area” adopted at the ministerial meeting of the Bologna Process in Bergen in May 2005.
      • evaluate the role played by NOKUT in the Norwegian higher education system.
  • 22. The evaluation
    • Tender -> NIFU STEP was given the contract for the evaluation
    • Team of five researchers;
      • Lee Harvey (The Higher Education Academy,UK),
      • Jeroen Huisman (International Centre for Higher Education Management, Universityof Bath, UK),
      • Liv Langfeldt (NIFU STEP, Norway),
      • Bjørn Stensaker (NIFU STEP, Norway) and
      • Don Westerheijden (Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, the Netherland).
  • 23. The results/ recommendations
    • NOKUT complies fully with ENQA’s membership requirements/the ESG.
    • NOKUT is an independent agency, but clear limits to its autonomy.
      • Rules and regulations little room for flexibility
      • NOKUT does not fully apply flexibility of the rules and regulations
    • NOKUT is adequately funded, but Ministry and NOKUT should engage in a discussion
  • 24. Results cont.
    • Too much focus on control activities, less with institutional and academic development. Recommend better balance between control and improvement
    • Should consider developing differentiated sets of accreditation criteria for different kinds of study programmes (e.g. different criteria for academic vs. professional study programmes)
    • Avoid conflicts of interest when appointing external reviewers
    • NOKUT improve their accountability function.