The document discusses future challenges facing the implementation of the Bologna Process reforms in European higher education. It identifies four main challenges: 1. Measuring student workload and linking it to learning outcomes in qualifications frameworks for credit transfer and mobility. 2. Satisfying employer concerns about the applicability of new degrees to the 21st century workforce. 3. Reconciling diverse national approaches in functionally separating first degree cycles from traditional structures. 4. Expanding access to higher education and student services to strengthen the social dimension, while increasing funding through new sources.

1. The Bologna Process: Where to from Here? 2010 AIEA Conference  February 14-17, 2010  Washington, DC

2. Principal Future Challenges to Implementation of Bologna Process Reforms: European & U.S. Perspectives John H. Yopp Associate Provost for Educational Partnerships & International Affairs University of Kentucky 2010 AIEA Conference “Internationalizing Higher Education: Essential to Our Future” J.W. Marriott Washington, DC February 14-17, 2010 Session The Bologna Process: Where to From Here? February 16, 1:45pm-3:00pm

3. Sources of Data and Information Used in Assessing The Bologna Process: Where to from Here? Europe Bologna Ministrial Communiques, especially Leuven/Leuvain (2009). 1 The EUA/ACA Handbook: Internationalization of European Higher Education (Graebel, et al (eds) 2008. 2,3 Proceedings of the European Association for International Education (EAIE) annual meetings. Bologna Process Stocktaking Report, 2009. Working Groups appointed by Bologna Follow-up Group to Ministerial Conference, 2009. 4 The EAIE-EUA-NAFSA Annual Workshops, 2007, 2008, 2009. 5 Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) and German Academic Exchange large scale study on support for international degree-seeking students in European institutions (2005-2006). 6 Trends V- The report preceding the Ministerial meetings in the Bologna Process on behalf of the European University Association (EUA)- Crosier, et al. 2007. 7 The feedback from presentations to the European Fulbright Commission Conferences (2208-2009) 8,9,10,11 AIEA 2010 Conference

4. The “Grand Challenge” of measuring ECTS credits in terms of Student Workload and linkage to Learning Outcomes in the National and European qualifications frameworks: Basis for credit transfer and European and Transatlantic Mobility. AIEA 2010 Conference FIRST CHALLENGE

5. Driving forces influencing European institutions to reform their degrees (Three Cycles) 1,7 Change in educational paradigm to a student-driven and outcomes-based system. Employers’ concerns in a globally-changing labor market. “ We reassert the importance of the teaching mission of higher education institutions and the necessity of ongoing curricular reform geared toward the development of learning outcomes.” (Communique of Ministers, Leuven and Louvain 2009) 1 AIEA 2010 Conference

6. What are the Elements and Evidence of this Challenge? 4,7,12-16 There is still not widespread understanding, nor acceptance within European universities of the two key elements of ECTS, i.e. student workload and learning outcomes. This is a work in progress. Award of degrees by European universities is still commonly made on the basis of traditional exams plus ECTS rather than ECTS credits alone. 7 AIEA 2010 Conference

7. ECTS credit is awarded on the basis of student workload (25-30 hours per credit) but the Bologna Process’ European Tuning approach has shown that approaches to teaching, learning outcomes, and assessment have an interrelated effect on credit allocation (ECTS) and, consequently, on student workload and that there is not a one-to-one relationship between workload and the time required to achieve the learning outcomes. 12,13,16 The interaction of the National and European Qualifications Frameworks which relate learning outcomes and ECTS credits to degrees awarded is complex and still evolving. 14 Kohler (2008) has provided a model to illustrate this interaction. 15 AIEA 2010 Conference

8. QF-EHEA/EQF-LLL (Reference System) European level National level Programme level Compatibility, certified Implementation Subsumption, quality-assured Planning and execution Recognition National Qualifications framework n Specific Programme x n Comparability Specific Programme x 1 Country 1 National Qualifications framework 1 Country n Programme-related Specific assessment process Kohler (2008) AIEA 2010 Conference

9. Satisfying European Employers’ concerns over applicability of the new “Bologna” degrees for the 21 st century workforce and subsequent graduate study: “ Academic ” and “ Professional Bachelors” AIEA 2010 Conference SECOND CHALLENGE

10. What are the Elements of This Challenge? 4,7 There is widespread lack of employer awareness of how the Bologna reform of degrees and the new cycles relate to their employee needs. Employers are not commonly involved in the curriculum reform processes. The Bologna Process Stocktaking Report (2009) states that some employers dissatisfaction with “The preparedness of graduates to work in the profession is well known” and that “some universities query whether employability should be a part of their mission and purpose.” AIEA 2010 Conference

11. Employers do not always understand what competencies are assured in the new bachelor degrees. There is a difference between “professional” bachelor’s degrees and “academic” bachelor’s degrees. There are less problems of holders of the first type entering the workforce than with those awarded the former. Trends V and the Employability Working Committee of the Bologna Stocktaking Group surveys both indicate that unless institutions find ways to involve employers in the curriculum and degree reforms the success of the Bologna Process will be delayed and compromised. AIEA 2010 Conference

12. Functional Separation of the “Bologna” first degree cycle from the traditional first degree structures: Reconciliation of the diverse national approaches . AIEA 2010 Conference THIRD CHALLENGE

13. What are the Elements of This Challenge? 7 Programmatic and curricular links between the bachelor’s and Master’s degrees are very strong providing a direct path between the two cycles. Many institutions of higher education do not have explicit alternative routes from the first and second cycles. In some countries (e.g. Austria & Germany) the new Bologna cycles co-exist with old first degree cycles creating confusion for employers and faculty alike. In many cases the Bologna first and second cycles are created by splitting bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the longer old first degree. AIEA 2010 Conference

14. There are universities that advise students to stay and enter the second cycle rather than go to another institution or to the workforce. EUA researchers in the Trends V survey noted that in several countries universities are financed on the basis of student numbers thereby encouraging advisement to remain in those universities for the second cycle. First cycle programs leading to the bachelor’s degree have not in many cases been designed as a “self-standing” entity nor whether or not the new degree is relevant to the needs of the labor market. AIEA 2010 Conference

15. Expanding and funding the social dimension of the Bologna Process: Access, Student Services, and Relationship to Global Competiveness and Transatlantic Collaboration. AIEA 2010 Conference FOURTH CHALLENGE

16. Communiqué of the Leuven and Louvain Conference- 2009 1 “ Social dimension: equitable access and completion The student body within higher education should reflect the diversity of Europe’s populations. We therefore emphasize the social characteristics of higher education and aim to provide equal opportunities to quality education. Access to higher education should be widened by fostering the potential of students from underrepresented groups and by providing adequate conditions for the completion of their studies. This involves improving the learning environment, removing all barriers to study and creating the appropriate economic conditions for students to be able to benefit from the study opportunities at all levels. Each participating country will set measurable targets for widening overall participation and increasing participation of underrepresented groups in higher education , to be reached by the end of the next decade. Efforts to achieve equity in higher education should be complemented by actions in other parts of the educational system.” AIEA 2010 Conference

17. The European University Association’s (EUA) Prague Declaration on Bologna’s Social Dimension- 2009 17 The Ten Key Success Factors for European Universities: Widening opportunities for participation in and successful completion of higher education; Improving researcher careers; Providing relevant and innovative study programmes; Developing distinctive institutional research profiles; Shaping, reinforcing and implementing autonomy; Increasing and diversifying income; Enhancing quality and transparency; Promoting internationalisation; Increasing and improving the quality of mobility; And developing partnerships . AIEA 2010 Conference

18. What are the Elements of This Challenge? 1,4,7,8,10,19 Site visits by Trends V researchers and discussions at EAIE meetings revealed that many faculty still consider the idea of diversifying the student body as equivalent to lowering academic quality. It is still a matter of debate as to the primary responsibility for increasing and funding access lies with the government policies or the institutions. Even though all Bologna countries support increased participation equity few have instituted strategies or systems to monitor progress. Only a very few have a strategy that integrates institutional policy with social policy and government action. AIEA 2010 Conference

19. It is agreed by Bologna Ministers and many faculty that within a framework of public policy (higher education as a public good) “funding remains the main priority to guarantee equitable access…” and that greater attention should be paid seeking new and diversified funding sources and methods.” 1 There exists strong and diverse opinions within European universities as to what constitutes adequate and appropriate student services and the topic has not been adequately discussed. A large scale study by the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and Trends V found that student services such as academic guidance and advisement, career services, psychological counseling and welfare services play a role in enhancing the attractiveness and international student competiveness of the European Higher Education Area, whose creation is a primary goal of the Bologna Process. 7,19 AIEA 2010 Conference

20. Where to from Here? The Evidence suggests: Continued emphasis on increased understanding and acceptance of student learning outcomes as a key Bologna reform element by universities and Ministers. Increased use of Qualifications Frameworks to assist IHE’s in development of instructional study programs based on learning outcomes and ECTS credits. Continuation of the innovative Tuning Process and increased collaboration and linkage to the higher education systems of other countries. Increased involvement of employers in curriculum design and preparation of professional standards to make bachelor degrees more understandable and relevant to the labor market. AIEA 2010 Conference

21. Sustained discussion and curricular innovation to strengthen the acceptance of “academic bachelor degrees” for the labor market. Related to this will be continued initiatives to functionally separate the bachelor’s degree from traditional first degree qualifications. Increased efforts on the part of Ministries and HEIs to expand and diversify student access to higher education (i.e. the Social Dimension). Related to this will be innovative and entrepreneurial approaches to the funding of the massification of higher education to preserve it as a public good . A very lively discussion within HEIs on the nature and extent of student services (e.g. advisement, counseling) and their role in the social dimension and international competitiveness. AIEA 2010 Conference

22. References 1. The Bologna Process 2020- The European Higher Education Area in the new decade. Communique of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 28-29 April 2009 (www.ond.vlaanderen.be/…/conference…/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communique_April_2009.pdf or www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/ 2. EUA/ACA Internationalisation of European Higher Education. An EUA/ACA Handbook. Eds Michael Graebel, Lewis Purser, Bernd Wachter and Lesley Wilson, Jose F. Raabe Verlag. Raabe Academic Publishers, Berlin 3. Yopp, John. 2008. Convergent Evolution of European and U.S. Education Systems, In: Internationalisation of European Higher Education. An EUA/ACA Handbook, Reference 2. 4. Rauhargers, A., Deane, C., and Pauwels, W. 2009. Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009. Working Groups Appointed by Bologna Follow-up Group to Ministerial Conference in Leuven/Louvain la Heuve. 5. Yopp, J.H. 2009. EAIE-NAFSA Workshop: The Bologna Process in 2009: Is Europe Reaching its Goals? Impacts on U.S. Collaborations-Parts 1, 2, 3. NAFSA 2009 Annual Conference and Expo, Fostering Global Engagement Through International Education, May 25, 2009. Los Angeles, California. 6. Kelo, M. 2008. Serving International Students-Motivations and Models. In: EUA/ACA Handbook, reference 2. 7. Crosier, D. Purser, L. and Smidt, H. 2007. Trends V : Universities Shaping the European Higher Education Area . European University Association, Brussels. www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/Final_Trends_Report_May_10.pdf AIEA 2010 Conference

23. 8. Yopp, J.H. 2009. Convergence of higher education reform initiatives in Europe’s Bologna Process and the United States: Opportunities for greater collaboration an potential role of the European Fulbright Commissions. In: Fulbright Regional Network Training Conference, Instito Camoes, Lisbon, Portugal, September 21-22, 2009. 9. Yopp, J.H. 2008. “Internationalization Strategies of Institutions of Higher Education in the United States and Their Impact on Trans-Atlantic Student Exchange and Institutional Cooperation” Presented at Conference of the Executive Directors of the Fulbright Commissions in Europe. Athens, Greece, April 16, 2008. 10. Yopp, J.H. 2008. Keynote “Systems of Higher Education in the U.S. and Europe: Convergence and Collaborative Opportunities”. Presented at the Conference on: Academic Mobility Between Austria and the United States: Status, Trends, and New Opportunities. Vienna, Austria, November 21, 2008. 11. Yopp, J.H. 2008. “Transatlantic University Cooperation: U.S. Perspective on Current and Future Possibilities”. Presented at the Seminar Program of the Fulbright Center for Finnish-American Exchange. Helsinki, Finland, December 11, 2008. 12. ECTS Users Guide of the Directorate General for Education and Culture, European Commission. 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc80_en.htm 13. Educational Structures in Europe-Phase II. 2009. Student Workload, Teaching Methods and Learning Outcomes: The Tuning Approach. www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/tuning.html (a comprehensive treatise). AIEA 2010 Conference

24. 14. The European Qualifications Framwork (EQF) for Lifelong Learning. European Commission, Education and Culture DG. 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/index_en.html . 15. Kohler, J. 2008. Bologna Instruments as Tools in Support of Enhancing Mobility and Internationalization. Chapter 5- Internationalization of European Higher Education. An EUA/ACA Handbook. Michael Gaebel, Lewis Purser, Bernd Wachter, and Leslie Wilson eds, Raabe Academic Publishers, Berlin. 16. Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Socrates Program/ http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/tuning/tuning_en.html . 17. Europe: EUA Releases Prague Declaration . University World News, 12 April 2009. Issue 0071. www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090410082617774&mode=print 18. Tausz, K. and Gyongyosi, K. 2009. Equality in a knowledge-based society- How to Widen Opportunities? Official Bologna Process Seminar. Ministry of Education and Culture. www.okm.gov.hu/main.php?folderID=2183 . 19. Kelo, M. 2008. Serving International Students-Motivations and Models. In: EUA/ACA Handbook, reference 14 above. AIEA 2010 Conference

25. Paths to Convergence: Euro Qualifications Frameworks and Tuning, and U.S. Accountability Clifford Adelman, Institute for Higher Education Policy, Feb. 16, 2010

26. What is the point of learning from other nations? Convergence. It happens. Macroeconomists have demonstrated this time and time again: nations that learn from others grow, those that do not, do not grow. Differential perspective. Other countries address problems similar to yours. Understanding their perspectives inevitably leads to recasting your own approaches to these challenges in ways you would not otherwise have considered at all. You have epiphanies!

27. Over the past 2-3 years, the principal learning for the U.S. has come from the Bologna Process While that learning is still at the margins, it grows every month, and has subtly influenced the way we think about accountability.

28. The core of learning from Bologna Qualifications Frameworks (QFs) and “Tuning” One for degrees; one for disciplines. And neither really started under Bologna.

29. Our measured message about Bologna: some of it has been successful, some less so, but it all illustrates That massive restructuring and reform is possible; That you don’t need governments to drive it: this is a voluntary undertaking; That nothing of significance is easy or instant: Europeans have been at it for a decade and know they have another decade to go . The fact of 25 major languages in play doesn’t exactly speed things up.

30. A natural, yet wary appeal of QFs, and we’ve had our first discussion of consequence, convened by Lumina The appeal is obvious: we have no common reference points in the U.S. for what our degrees mean, and none of the extant “accountability” systems provide them. Other countries are becoming a lot more straightforward, honest, and transparent about this, and that is embarrassing. There will probably be 2 or 3 more discussions over the next year, each with an expanding group of stake-holders.

31. Degree Qualifications Frameworks: what did we ask? on what did we focus? What does each level of degree we award mean? What does it represent in terms of student learning? How does it differ from the levels immediately below and immediately above it? Common sense questions . U.S. arguments on this field stagnate on authority and process issues; under Bologna, everything is about content and competencies. We stressed that at all levels of the qualifications frameworks of Bologna, the criteria of content and performance are “ratcheted up” from previous levels. U.S. formulations have not addressed the ratchet principle.

32. We assume (but we are not sure) that, whether pan-European or national , the descriptors for each level constitute a warranty. By inverse logic, the student who did not “demonstrate” specified knowledge, skills, etc. did not earn a degree. In terms of quality assurance, institutions must thus be able to “demonstrate” that their students have “demonstrated.” . . .and that means all graduating students, not merely the 100 who volunteered to take a standardized test. U.S. academics are hesitant to claim such a warranty, and our current “accountability” templates default to small groups of test-takers.

33. How we talked about QFs In ways to distinguish them from wish lists . Under the challenge of our intense beliefs in institutional autonomy. With the challenge of eliciting voluntary endorsement . With consistent gravitation toward the discipline-level illustration.

34. And that’s why “Tuning” comes first in the U.S. Faculty understand learning outcomes in the discipline before they understand generic degree outcomes. Faculty are trained and organized in the disciplines, hence . . . more likely to respond to the task of identifying common reference points for student learning in their fields.

35. How did we explain what “Tuning” in a discipline means? After a consultation survey with employers, former students, faculty, the Tuning process sets up a “common language” for expressing what a curriculum in the discipline aims to do, but does not prescribe the means of doing it. You get “reference points” for student learning outcomes, not standardization of content, sequence, and delivery. There is no straightjacket, but there is “convergence.”

36. Put another way. . . Everyone winds up with the same music staffs, range of time signatures, tempo commands, and system of notation. Then all programs in the same discipline sing in the same key---chemistry in G, history in A-minor, business in B-flat---but don’t necessarily sing the same melodic line.

37. The “Tuning USA” Pilot Project: a 7-month exploration Sponsored by the Lumina Foundation for Education 3 State higher education systems (Indiana, Minnesota, and Utah). Roughly 9 institutions in each state, most of them public, but some private, too. 6 disciplines (2 in Utah and Minnesota; 3 in Indiana): biology, chemistry, physics, history, elementary education, and graphic arts. Students on each team (unlike the Euro version)

38. Two important presences on each team: The “flagship” state university. Without this research institution, there is no authority in a state system. The community colleges, a major starting point for U.S. undergraduates. Without them, we could not distinguish between learning outcomes in the short-cycle degree from those at the bachelor’s level. European Tuning does not face this issue. Discussions tend to accept existing relationships between sectors, as opposed to proposing new relationships in light of Tuning.

39. Example: Chemistry Tuning Team in Indiana Identified 36 subject-specific competences, and found 26 of them common to the 2-year college and 4-year college programs. So they asked, “What is the real difference in degree levels?” Voila! Qualifications frameworks!

40. Chemistry Tuning in Europe: ECTN5, i.e. the 5 th 3-year Project Brings in Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology to provide a complete sense of applications of the bench science. From the other side, adds more of the bench science to applications. Seeking to answer the questions: “What does it mean ‘to do good chemistry’”? What does it mean ‘to do good chemical engineering’”? Neither means new course requirements, rather an expansion of learning outcome templates. There’s a long time-line here, illustrating what’s ahead for a U.S. effort.

41. When the Tuning USA teams arrived at the point of writing learning outcomes we found what NUFFIC found in its evaluation of Tuning in 4 disciplines: that faculty are not accustomed to writing criterion-referenced statements even in their own fields, so produce, instead statements that are not really operational competences, extremely vague statements, statements of the obvious, etc. Eventually, we will need to offer workshops.

42. In the meantime. . . All state teams have been given an extension to revisit and refine what they managed to do in 7 months; All teams are conducting state conferences and demonstrations to share their experience and its products; Disciplinary faculty in the states are visiting each other’s campuses, labs, and studios and talking to each other in a way they had never done previously. This is what the European Tuning projects mean by “bottom-up”: it’s slow, but it works!

43. 2010 AIEA Conference Responses to the Bologna Process within the broader Australian context Professor John Dewar Provost University of Melbourne

44. Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement Changes to the Australian Qualifications Framework Review of Australia’s Higher Education System Australian curriculum reforms Other developments Impetus for these developments: student-driven, quality assurance considerations consistent academic standards comparability of qualifications to prepare graduates for further education or careers in a global context An Australian perspective Key developments to date

45. Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement The Diploma Supplement and Australia The Diploma Supplement: Describes a higher education qualification in a way that is clear to potential employers and other higher education institutions, in order to achieve recognition and mobility of the qualification Places the qualification in the context of the higher education system within which it was issued A similar tool in Australia would achieve the following: Greater recognition of Australian awards internationally, increasing Australian graduates' international mobility for further study or employment purposes, and Australia's competitiveness in the international education export market Improved comparability of Australian qualifications in the Asia-Pacific region in particular, supporting the common goal, agreed to by Ministers attending the Asia-Pacific Education Ministers’ Meeting in April 2006, of increasing greater student and academic mobility and transferability of qualifications

46. Background to the project in Australia In January 2007, a consortium of Australian universities was commissioned to develop a single agreed template for an Australian version of the Diploma Supplement. The consortium represented 14 universities led by the University of New England, the University of Melbourne, and the Australian National University. The project was directed jointly by the Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE) at the University of Melbourne and the University of New England's Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy (CHEMP). The final report, Proposal for an Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement was published in May 2008 The University of News South Wales was the first university in the Asia-Pacific region to introduce the graduation statement Final report and recommendations Key recommendations: That an Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement be introduced and issued free-of-charge to all graduating students in Australia for higher education courses recognised within the Australian Qualifications Framework Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement

47. Final report and recommendations That the preferred model of the Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement – consisting of five sections plus certification and comprising both ‘core’ and ‘optional’ elements – be implemented. To ensure national consistency, the five sections are to be presented in a uniform sequence by all higher education institutions That implementation should be on a voluntary basis commencing as soon as practicable from 2008 Implementation The Australian Government has committed $3.7 million to assist Australia’s 37 publicly-funded universities in implementing the Graduation Statement between 2008-2010 Grants of $100,000 are available to assist universities in the implementation of the Graduation Statement Other institutions Implementation by other higher education (private) providers undertaken from 2009 Further consideration will be given to whether the model might serve both higher education and VET awards. An appropriate title in this case would be Australian Graduation Statement Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement

48. Why not ‘Diploma Supplement’? The term ‘Diploma Supplement’ is problematic in the Australian context While ‘diploma’ in the European context means an academic award, in Australia it refers to a particular type of award The word ‘supplement’ is also not ideal – it conveys the idea that the documentation is an ‘add-on’ or of lesser importance that the testamur The adoption of a distinctive Australian title was preferred since Australia is outside the European Higher Education Area and since there had already been some variation of the original title in the UK Information included in the Graduation Statement The five mandatory sections of the Statement are: The Graduate – personal details (name, student number) The Award – details of the level of the award, pathways to further studies and course accreditation Awarding Institution – the name and details of the institution, such as year of establishment and web address Academic Record – an academic transcript Description of the Australian Higher Education System – a comprehensive summary of the Australian system Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement

49. Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement – Example

50. Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement – Example

51. What is the AQF? The AQF is a national framework of qualifications in the (post-compulsory) school, vocational education and training (VET), and higher education sectors in Australia The Framework is a highly visible system of educational recognition and endeavours to link together all levels of qualifications in Australia The AQF publishes a register of every AQF qualification and the providers accredited to deliver the qualifications a handbook to assist employers, course and curriculum developers, accrediting bodies and the wider public to understand factors defining Australian qualifications Strengthening the AQF In May 2009, the AQF Council commenced a review of the AQF to create a more contemporary AQF structure, incorporating a common taxonomy of learning outcomes, a hierarchy of qualifications, and a measurement of the volume of learning Australian Qualifications Framework

52. Strengthening the AQF Two consultation papers (May, October 2009) released for comment Proposed changes to the architecture of Australia’s qualifications: A levels structure with levels expressed as learning outcomes Revised qualification type descriptors for each of the existing qualification types expressed as learning outcomes A measurement of the notional duration of learning for each qualification type An integrated set of qualification types positioned on a levels structure Work is underway to revise the levels criteria and qualifications descriptors in response to stakeholder feedback. A testing process will follow in early 2010 Australian Qualifications Framework

53. Benefits of the revised AQF Potential for improving linkages and articulation between qualifications Important implications for the comparability of Australian qualifications locally and internationally Increased recognition of graduates’ qualifications and their skills Greater articulation across courses due to better credit transfer options and clearer pathways The AQF is broadly consistent with Bologna but continued monitoring will ensure that Australian awards or qualifications are compatible with those of Europe Priorities for the University of Melbourne The AQF should recognise the diversity and complexity of postgraduate awards or levels of study There has been a shift across the sector towards coursework Masters programs which do not conform to the conventional framework for Masters qualifications (for example, the Juris Doctor does not presume prior competencies in the relevant field of study but has higher expectations of its students than an undergraduate course) The Framework should seek to preserve the diversity of the individual missions of Australian universities, and to maximise the capacity of institutions to innovate in response to present and future educational and training needs Australian Qualifications Framework

54. Mission-based compacts for universities Australian Government’s recent reforms of the higher education sector announced in 2009 mark the beginning of a new relationship between the Government and higher education institutions The Government will enter into mission-based compacts or agreements with universities to support them to pursue their distinctive missions The compacts will aim to facilitate the distribution of performance-based funding for teaching and learning and for research in universities, while recognising institutional autonomy Interim Agreements made with universities in 2009 for 2010 Key components of the compacts Three components: 1) preamble; 2) teaching and learning; 3) research Teaching and learning component to address: The institution’s commitment to contribute to national priorities identified by the Government in relation to provision of student places (and details of any targeted Government assistance – for example, in national priority areas) Specific targets for performance-based funding. Individual institutional targets will be set at levels consistent in aggregate with the Government’s ambitions for performance of the sector, but in a manner which also takes into account individual university circumstances Review of Australia’s higher education system

55. Measures and indicators for negotiating performance targets The Commonwealth Government is consulting with the higher education sector, including universities, to develop the compacts framework and policy proposals to support the new standards-based framework An important policy proposal is the Indicator Framework for Higher Education Performance Funding . This proposal outlines measures and indicators for negotiating performance targets: Student participation and inclusion Student experience Student attainment Quality of learning outcomes TEQSA and teaching and learning standards The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) will be established in 2010 TEQSA will provide an independent assessment of whether institutions have achieved their teaching and learning performance targets TEQSA will establish minimum standards that higher education providers are required to meet to ensure overall quality and performance across the sector The standards-based framework will include agreed academic standards Review of Australia’s higher education system

56. Establishing minimum academic standards – Australia’s Tuning Project? The Tuning Project (Bologna) attempts to set outcome standards by which to assess higher education teaching and learning quality In addition to the proposed standards-based framework supporting the compacts, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) in Australia is working across a number of areas in relation to defining discipline-based academic standards: The Australian Learning and Teaching Council is leading a Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project. The Project will facilitate the formulation of academic standards in six discipline groupings by discipline communities and their representatives The Australian Government is participating in the Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) project. This is an OECD feasibility study into the assessment of higher education learning outcomes. The findings of this project will help inform the development of the standards framework for higher education The Australian Universities Quality Assessment Agency (AUQA) is seeking to be registered by the European Quality Assurance Register as one the quality assurance agencies recognised by the Bologna countries. This is important to ensure that Australian degrees are trusted, and to encourage mobility. Review of Australia’s higher education system

57. The Melbourne Model A three-cycle model, 3 + 2 + 3, with some variation across the University Characterised by undergraduate education which requires deep inquiry into a chosen field of study, as well as breadth of knowledge through the study of disciplines outside that field Six New Generation undergraduate degrees offer pathways to employment, to professional graduate programs, and to research higher degrees: Bachelor of Arts Bachelor of Science Bachelor of Commerce Bachelor of Environments Bachelor of Music Bachelor of Biomedicine Australian curriculum reforms The Australian context Australian universities have been reviewing the content and structure of their curriculum/courses to ensure that they are offering students high-quality-degrees that promote graduates' capacity to live and work successfully throughout the world

58. The Melbourne Model The breadth component – students take 25 per cent of their undergraduate degree (or 75 unit points) in a field or fields of study outside their principal degree A range of focused and intense graduate courses to prepare students for professional careers (For example, the Juris Doctor, the Master of Teaching, the Doctor of Medicine) Research training, embedded in undergraduate education and in Honours and Masters programs, prepares graduates for doctoral research and employment The new Model commenced in 2008 University of Western Australia UWA has undertaken a two-year consultative process to consider reform of its course structures Changes to the structure of its degrees, including introducing undergraduate requirements to promote breadth, research skills, communication skills, and community service Reforms likely to come into effect in 2012 Australian curriculum reforms

59. Other developments Ministerial Advisory Committee on the Bologna Process continues to advise the Australian Government Australia cooperated with data collection process that informed the April 2009 European Ministerial meeting on Bologna Early discussion in Australia about the adoption of a credit transfer system European Commission has issued a tender for a new global, multi-dimensional university ranking system. Three Australian universities will be participating in this work