2.Quality Assurance

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    1 Favorite

    2.Quality Assurance - Presentation Transcript

    1. Quality Assurance in European Higher Education Bologna Promoters’ Presentation Material (to be adapted as needed)
      • Quality assurance – why ?
      • From Industry to a Knowledge Society
      • Functions of QA
      • Institutional QA
      • External QA
      • Developing a QA Process
      • Policy Context
      • European Standards and Guidelines
      • Potential Outcomes
      • Tools for Success
      • Projects and initiatives in European QA
      Content of the Presentation
      • A tool for addressing the complexities of European higher education
      • A relative concept, based on institutional mission and goals
      • C losely related to questions of ideology and power (who defines quality in which way, accountability aspects etc.)
      • In the best interest of students, employers and society in general, who should also be involved in the QA process
      • A dynamic, ongoing process
      • Potentially a bureaucratic burden, to be kept to a minimum
      • Orientation towards the future
      What is QA?
      • Fitness for purpose
      • Compliance (zero error or deviation)
      • Satisfaction of students and parents
      • Excellence
      • Value for money
      • Transformation (process of changing the student)
      • Enhancement (process of changing the university)
      • Control (punitive/rewarding process of QA)
      • Public information, reassurance, confidence
      • Ranking
      • Accountability
      • International acceptability
      • Resource allocation
      Why QA? A Multitude of Purposes
    2. Short History of QA in European Higher Education
      • Pre-1980s:
      • Teaching, learning, research and services are hardly measures or assessed in formal processes.
      • Quality notion in HE based on reputation of individual professors and departments of universities.
      • Post-1980s:
      • International discussions affirming the importance of safeguarding quality of higher education: UNESCO, OECD, INQAAHE…
      • Based on similar principles, many unique national and institutional QA approaches were developed.
      • Today:
      • Europe-wide efforts to enhance QA transparency, consistency and commonality to meet the needs of student mobility and cross-border cooperation of universities generated by internationalisation trends.
      • Joint European Standards and Guidelines, peer review process for legitimating QA agencies, and establishment of a Register of QA agencies.
      General: Quality in HE and Research has always been an issue.
      • Peer approval and national authorities felt to no longer be enough to assure quality of growing mass education.
      • Led to formalised processes for assessing the quality of higher education, particularly the teaching and learning aspects.
      • First quality assurance concepts were borrowed from industrial production processes, focusing on assessment of “ products” , measurable outcomes by employing bottom-line standards .
      • HE institutions develop QA processes and enhance awareness for the need of more institutionalised ways of quality assessment
      • But: QA processes not fully geared towards
            • specific nature & mission of HE institutions (social interaction in learning and research, resulting not necessarily in “products” or a clear-cut assessable outcomes)
            • social and economic change (increasingly knowledge-based )
      From product assessment …
      • Good QA of higher education needs to consider not only outcomes but also the context and the interaction of players
      • Specifically relationships between:
      • The mission goals of the university;
      • Researcher, teachers, students and administrative staff;
      • The framework of the conditions set by the university environment in its unique political, social and economic situation .
      • Quality assurance as a joint shared effort of all members of the institution = Quality Culture
      … to institutional Quality Culture in a Knowledge-based Society
      • A shared culture that values quality, not only managerial processes.
      • Not just a task of the QA specialist or the QA unit, but the collective attitude directing the actions of all stakeholders.
      • Includes internal reviews that are coherent with its own mission, objectives, and academic and organisational values.
      • An important aspect of maintaining a balance between autonomy and uniqueness with accountability.
      Quality Culture
      • QA has two main functions:
      • Quality enhancement: the maintenance and continual enhancement of teaching, learning and research, and of the entire institutional framework  Internal QA
      • ..with regards to the outside world  External QA
      • Accountability: the demonstration of quality to external stakeholders (governments, students, parents, employers, society) for different reasons, including legal requirements and promotion of the university .  External QA
      Functions of QA
      • Internal:
        • What : review processes and implementation of new strategies fit to the mission goals, profile and context of a university
        • Why: for the enhancement of the overall performance of the institution and all its parts and elements, and the promotion of creativity and innovation
        • How: activated by a dynamic quality culture – shared values and attitudes, staff identification with the university as a community of learning, etc.
      • External:
        • What: either voluntary or compulsory review/evaluation/audit by an external QA review body
        • Why: accountability and validation, and trust building between the institution and the outside world
        • How: often motivated by laws or requirements of funding agencies
      Aspects of Institutional QA
      • Output: Examine the outcomes of the institution’s activities: teaching, research, goal achievement etc. Associated with excellence, fitness-for-purpose, effectiveness.
      • Input: Tallying of factors like equipment, staffing, funding etc. Needs to be related to output.
      • Process: The activities that lead to the desired outcomes, such as governance structures, decision-making processes or administrative procedures.
      Developing a QA process In order to achieve a sensible concept of quality, a QA process may need to consider all three aspects Quality Perspectives: A QA process can focus on
    3. Developing a QA Process cont’d
      • Selecting an a pproach :
      • Accreditation
      • Evaluation
      • Audit
      • Review
      • Benchmarking
      • Assessment
      • Selecting a focus :
      • Institutional
      • Programme
      • Smaller units like research, services, faculty
      • Process, i.e. the institutional QA system itself
      • A combination of the above
      Accreditation and Evaluation are the most commonly used methods for external QA at the level of institutions and programmes.
      • Caution:
      • These processes are not usually employed in their pure forms anymore, but in combination.
      • The terms can mean different things in different places.
    4. Accreditation and Evaluation: Different in process and purpose
      • Accreditation
      • formalised decision by an recognised authority (accreditation agency) as to whether an institution of higher education or a programme conforms to certain defined minimum standards.
      • Predefined consequences of a formal nature: authorisation to run a programme or institution, or: no accreditation/ closure
      • Yes/No decision – in some cases conditional “Yes”
      • Evaluation
      • Evaluation aims at supporting the institution’s or programme’s efforts towards development and improvement
      • Aims at increasing strategic capacity for change and internal quality culture
      • Fitness-for-purpose rationale
      • Recommendations for enhancement, change, reorientation
      • Shared features :
      • self-evaluation/documentation submitted by institution or programme
      • external assessment by peers
    5. Accreditation and Evaluation: Examples for mixed procedures
      • Increasingly, a methodological mix can be observed:
      • A fitness-for-purpose approach would consider – probably intrinsically - a minimum “standard”, i.e. what is appropriate of an institution of this mission and standing.
      • a standard-based approach would have to consider fitness-for-purpose, i.e. in addition to national standards, the specific situation and mission of the institute
      • Evaluation can be linked to a formalized decision and concrete obligations and sanctions
      • Accreditation can recommend improvement, …
    6. Programme
      • Based on the ability of the institute to saveguard the quality of its parts
      • Easier to facilitate
      • Benefits all parts of the institution
      • Can not guarantee the quality of all programmes and services
      • appear as the more thorough approach, as it delivers a judgment or recommendations on the quality of the one specific programme.
      • in practice, it implies considerable costs and workload (periodicity, preparation of self-assessment report etc.)
      • Institutional quality may limit programme performance
      Programme, institution or process?  A QA process may need to combine these approaches according to national and institutional requirements Institution, Process
      • Internationalisation/globalisation:
        • Increased competition, growing global higher education market, debate on trade in educational services (GATS)
      • Bologna Process:
        • 46 European Countries looking for convergence through common structures and tools - focus on teaching and learning
      • Lisbon Strategy:
        • 27 European Union Member States with ambitious economic and social goals – focus on research and wider societal transformation process
        •  Demand for quality enhancement, and more convergence, cooperation and exchange in QA processes
      Policy context
      • European Union Council Recommendation 24 September, 1998
        • Evaluation and improvement is a good thing
      • Bologna Declaration, 1999
        • More European cooperation in QA
      • Prague Communiqué, 2001
        • Quality is key to the success of the EHEA
      • Berlin Communiqué, 2003
        • Quality moves to the top of the agenda
        • The responsibilities of HEIs are acknowledged
      • Bergen Communiqué, 2005
        • Systematic introduction of internal QA directly correlation to external QA
        • European Standards and Guidelines
      • London Communiqué, 2007
        • Register of European Higher Education Quality Assurance Agencies
      Policy context: Increasing importance of QA at European level Bologna Process – Ministerial Meetings
      • European Standards and Guidelines for QA
      • To be understood as joint principles to be considered during the development of national and institutional QA procedures.
      • Peer revies of QA agencies
      • All QA agencies must be recognised by a competent public authority in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), as well as be independent in operation and decision from third parties.
      • European Register of QA agencies (tbc 2007)
      • Instrument to assure and improve quality of QA agencies, and to promote mutual trust between them, as well as provide a list of reliable agencies institutions and governments can choose from.
      • European Forum for QA
      • European-level discussions about QA involving all constituencies and stakeholders.
      Tools for Success: Post-Bergen 2005
    7. Bergen 2005: European Standards and Guidelines
      • What they are:
      • Generic, not specific, principles of what should be done
      • A process-neutral source of assistance and guidance
      • What they are not :
      • Prescriptive
      • Detailed procedures
      • A European quality assurance system
      • Why they are important:
      • Agreed through the Bologna Process
      • Stocktaking through the Bologna Process
      • Inter-relationship between internal, external QA and QA agency
      • Potential for more transparency, cooperation and exchange at European level
      • international visibility of European HE
    8. London 2007: European Quality Register
      • Register of European and also international QA agencies
      • Promote the European Standards and Guidelines, in particular regarding QA agencies (peer review of agencies, impartiality etc.)
      • Purpose: to allow stakeholders and the general public open access to objective information about trustworthy QA agencies that are working in line with the ESG.
      • It will enhance confidence in HE in the EHEA and beyond, and facilitate the mutual recognition of QA and accreditation decisions.
      • Voluntary, self-financing, independent and transparent.
      • The register will be the responsibility of the main stakeholders: HEIs, students, QA agencies and social partners.
    9. The E4 Group
      • European University Association (EUA)
      • European Student Union (ESU - formerly ESIB)
      • European University Colleges (EURASHE)
      • European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)
      • Tasked by the European Ministers to develop and implement the Register
      London 2007: Who does the Register? ENQA EUA EURASHE ESU
      • The Institutional Evaluation Programme
      • Quality Culture Project
      • Creativity Project
      • Transnational European Evaluation Project I and II (TEEP)
      • Quality Procedures in European Higher Education
      • Quality Convergence Study Project
      • European Masters New Evaluation Methodolgy (EMNEM)
      • Tuning European Higher Education
      • European Quality Labels
      • E-xcellence
      Projects and Initiatives in European QA

    + Youth AgoraYouth Agora, 2 years ago

    custom

    1066 views, 1 favs, 3 embeds more stats

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 1066
      • 1043 on SlideShare
      • 23 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 1
    • Downloads 105
    Most viewed embeds
    • 13 views on http://portal.bolognaexperts.net
    • 9 views on http://supernova.bolognaexperts.net
    • 1 views on http://209.85.135.132

    more

    All embeds
    • 13 views on http://portal.bolognaexperts.net
    • 9 views on http://supernova.bolognaexperts.net
    • 1 views on http://209.85.135.132

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories