Transcript Challenges and Trends in quality assurance

Challenges and Trends in quality
assurance
Maria Kelo, ENQA
Tia Loukkola, EUA
12 June 2014
Structure of the presentation
•
•
•
•
Context and history
Internal QA
QA and quality culture
Future challenges
European Quality Assurance
Framework
• QA: one action line in the Bologna Process since the
beginning (1999)
• 2005: Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the
EHEA (ESG)
– Proposed by the E4 Group (ENQA, ESU, EUA, EURASHE = the
stakeholders, not ministries!)
• 2008: European Quality Assurance Register for Higher
Education (EQAR), established by E4  list of “trustworthy
agencies”
• 2012: Decision to revise the ESG by 2015
– Need updating taking account of developments since 2005
– Need clarification
– To be undertaken by the stakeholders
Scope of the current and revised ESG
• Standards and guidelines for quality assurance, not
quality as such
• Apply to all higher education offered in the EHEA
regardless of the mode of study or place of delivery (TNE,
e-learning, short courses…)
• Apply to all types of QA activities and agencies
• Quality assurance can serve a variety of purposes:
enhancement – accountability  to sides of the same
coin?
• Generic, not specific  provide the framework and
common basis for national and institutional activities
Some principles for QA
• Higher education institutions have primary responsibility for the
quality of their provision and its assurance ( role of agencies, and
of ministries?)
• QA responds to the diversity of HE systems, institutions and
programmes
• QA supports the development of a quality culture
• QA involves stakeholders and takes into account the expectations
of all stakeholders and society
Also:
• Supports trust  also central role in internationalisation (mobility
and recognition)
• Provides transparent and independent information on the quality
of HEIs and programmes  but is it accessible and easy to use?
• External and internal QA build on each other
In concrete terms
• Internal evaluation is the corner stone of QA in HE.
• External evaluation is a condition of the credibility of the results of
the internal evaluation.
• External evaluators (QA agencies) are accountable for the quality of
their activities
− ENQA membership: a positive external evaluation is one of the
condition for being recognised as a full member (cyclical
evaluation every 5 years).
• Setting up a European register of the trustworthy QA agencies
− A tool for: facilitating recognition; acting against bogus HEIs and
QA agencies; increasing trust, … (EQAR adopted in London 2007)
In concrete terms
For HEIs
• It is up to each institution to develop its own quality
culture and to put in place policies, strategies and systems
adapted to its situation, mission, context and ambition.
• The HEIs’ quality assurance mechanisms have to satisfy
their proper needs but also the expectations of their
partners and stakeholders. (The first set of standards in
the ESG).
In concrete terms
For agencies
• In order to be recognised as trustworthy ,need to prove
that fulfil the requirements of the ESG for external quality
assurance agencies (ESG Part 3)
• Use procedures that comply with the ESG for the external
quality assurance of higher education (ESG Part 2)
• Verify the HEIs’ achievements against the ESG for internal
quality assurance (ESG Part 1)
In concrete terms
For governments
• Provide the policy context and ensure national legislation enables
ESG compliant QA
• “ We adopt the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in
the European Higher Education Area as proposed by ENQA.
• We commit ourselves to introducing the proposed model for peer
review of quality assurance agencies on a national basis, while
respecting the commonly accepted guidelines and criteria.” Bergen
Communiqué, 19-20 May 2005
• Establishment of EQAR for recognition of QA decisions
State of the European QA
• Different approaches when creating national quality assurance systems:
(programme or institutional) accreditation, evaluations or audits
• Level of institutional autonomy in creating internal QA systems varies, but
can observe a move to institutional approaches (more flexibility)
• QA systems are to be created by the stakeholders, in respect of national
legislation  importance of independent agencies ( not ministry
departments)
• Countries and also institutions are in different phases in implementing
institutional as well as national QA systems (move from ministry-led
QA/accreditation to independent agencies)
 Not one European QA, but the ESG provide framework for good practice
shared by the whole EHEA
 EU countries to some extent more advanced, but approaches vary
Quality assurance approaches
Orange: advisory improvement
oriented (“evaluation”)
Brown: decision granting permission
(“accreditation”)
In the majority of EHEA countries,
quality assurance is concerned with
granting permission to higher
education institutions or programmes
to operate on the basis of threshold
quality standards. Only a minority of
countries exclusively follow an
improvement-oriented approach.
Source: BP implementation report 2012.
Current trends
„National external quality assurance regimes and the agencies as main actors are in
compliance with ESG.“ (Lower compliance: due to national legislation)
The most common external quality assurance procedures are accreditation and
evaluation of programmes, followed at a significant distance by evaluation and
accreditation of institutions, and by audits.
90% of agencies apply more than one approach, 75% of agencies changed or are in
the process of changing their approach
• a trend towards audits/institutional evaluation (flexibility and responsibility to HEI)
• Intensifying monitoring and follow-up through data and indicators (measuring
impact is a hot question!)
• Increasing importance of identifying excellence (attractiveness of HE and
promotion of innovation)
(Stocktaking report 2009; External evaluation of the Bologna process 2010, ENQA survey of agency reviews 2011)
7.7.2015
replace txt View menu > Header and footer
12
Why work on internal QA?
• In the past 10 years: most important change for 60 % of
institutions
• In the next 5 years: the 2nd most important theme
• Introduction of external QA following the ESG
• Very strong correlation between internationalisation and QA
• Change drivers:
• Increased competition and collaboration between HEIs
• Increased cooperation with external (public and private)
partners
• Development of external QA systems and demands for
accountability
• Increased student numbers
EUA study EQC I: Main conclusions
• QA systems are largely in place, although they are recent
• Embedding them takes time and efforts
• Future efforts should focus on:
• Participation of all stakeholders
• Attention to output and results (not just on inputs)
• Improved use of results of internal evaluation
Example of the use of QA results
• 70% of respondents use student surveys as one of the
means to monitor students’ perceptions of the teaching
they receive. Among them:
– 90% take the results into account in the assessment of
teaching staff
– 60% of the respondents state that students who
participated in a survey are informed about the outcomes
and the resulting actions taken
– 5% make the information on teachers’ aptitudes and
performance publicly available
EQC II: key aspects of internal QA
The most successful internal QA systems are:
• Closely linked to institutional strategies
• Grounded in effective internal decision making processes
and structures
• Context-sensitive: take into account different
organisational/disciplinary cultures
• Not punitive but developmental
 Quality culture
QA and quality culture
Remaining challenges in Europe
• Understanding when local adaptations are related to quality
and when to traditions
• Recognition of QA decisions and foreign qualifications
• QA’s role in raising quality standards/levels  Impact of QA?
• Meaningful involvement of all parties (challenge: employers)
• QA of joint programmes
• Information value and usability of QA reports
• QA of cross-border higher education
“Food for thought”
• What are the conditions required for the establishment of
independent QA agencies?
• How can quality culture and commitment to QA at the
HEI level be supported?
• How can stakeholders be involved in the QA processes
and what might hinder this?
• How can QA support the transparency of information
about quality of programmes and institutions and fight
sub-standard provision?