Transcript Slide 1
IMPLICATIONS OF
THE “BOLOGNA
PROCESS” FOR
MSCHE
Jean Morse, President
MSCHE Commission meeting
March 5, 2009
OUTLINE AND ISSUES
1. OVERVIEW OF “BOLOGNA,” I.E. VARIOUS
EUROPEAN PROCESSES BEING CREATED
TO IMPROVE COMPARABILITY OF
DEGREES AND TO EASE TRANSFER OF
CREDIT
2. DESCRIPTION OF QUALIFICATION
FRAMEWORKS
3. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER FOUNDATION –
QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK (I.E.
DEFINITION OF DEGREES) SHOULD BE
UNDERTAKEN IN THE U.S.
ELEMENTS of “BOLOGNA”
DEGREE DEFINITION
DEGREE CYCLES
CREDIT TRANSFER (ECTS)
DIPLOMA SUPPLEMENT
QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES
QUALIFICATION FRAMEWORKS
TUNING PROGRAM GOALS
QUALITY ASSURANCE
EUROPEAN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR:
http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_3edition%20(2).pdf
INTERNAL QA:HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS
EXTERNAL QA OF HIGHER EDUCATION
EXTERNAL QA AGENCIES
EUROPEAN AGENCIES ARE REVIEWED AGAINST
THESE STANDARDS TO JOIN THE EUROPEAN
“REGISTER” OF QA AGENCIES
DEGREE CYCLES:
“3+2+3”
BACHELOR’S (180 – 240 ECTS)
MASTER’S (90 – 120 ECTS)
Ph.D. (approximately 180 – 240 credits)
Nations moving from 5 year degrees to
3+2 have deep concerns as to use of the
First Cycle degree
US: significant % not accepting 3 Year
UG degree for graduate study
ECTS
European Credit Transfer
and Accumulation System
BASED ON STUDENT
WORKLOAD, AND SOMETIMES,
ON WEIGHTING OF CHALLENGE
vs. US SYSTEM OF CREDITS
BASED ON FACULTY CONTACT
HOURS
DIPLOMA SUPPLEMENT
CREDENTIAL, ITS LEVEL, ENTRY
REQUIREMENTS, OFFICIAL
DURATION
DEGREE REQUIREMENTS, MODES
OF STUDY, ENROLLMENT INTENSITY,
AND COMPRESSED SIGNALS OF
STUDENT PERFORMANCE
PURPOSE OF THE CREDENTIAL
TRANSCRIPT AND DESCRIPTION OF
NATIONAL SYSTEM ARE APPENDED
“TUNING” DISCIPLINARY
FRAMEWORKS
INTENDED TO CREATE “REFERENCE
POINTS” SO THAT THERE IS
“CONVERGENCE” ACROSS
COUNTRIES
TO BE CREATED BY FACULTY
PROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY IN
SPECIFIC DISCIPLINES
TUNING, CONT’D
DISCIPLINES TO ARTICULATE
OUTLINES AND BENCHMARKS FOR:
SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE
GENERIC SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES
INTERPERSONAL
INSTRUMENTAL
SYSTEMIC
LEVELS OF MASTERY WITHIN
SUBJECT
TUNING LEVELS
SUBJECT DEPENDENT OUTCOMES FOR
GENERAL LEARNING
GENERAL COMPETENCY ACROSS DISCIPLINES
(TRANSFERABLE SKILLS)
LEVEL DESCRIPTORS FOR INDIVIDUAL
COURSES
THRESHHOLD VS. DESIRED OUTCOMES
RELATIVE VS. ABSOLUTE VALUE OF CREDITS
REGULAR VS. EXTRA-CHALLENGING
THE SYSTEM IN PRACTICE:
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
FRAMEWORK AND PROGRAM GOALS
Qualifications
Framework –
Dublin General
Qualifications
Tuning subject dependent
General Learning
Outcomes
(reference points)
Tuning General,
Competency
Across
Disciplines
(Transferable
skills)T59
Benchmarking
(alternative to
Tuning) Generic
Skills in History
(UK)
Benchmarking
(alternative to
Tuning)
Learning
Outcomes
Communicate
Information,
ideas, problems,
and
solutions to
specialized and
non-specialized
audiences (18)
BA – Communicate the
basic knowledge of
the field in coherent ways
and in appropriate media
(oral, written, graphic, etc.)
p. 35
Level 1 –
instrumental,
interpersonal, and
systemic (p. 37)
Interpersonal
includes ability to
communicate
with experts in
other fields T 23
Communication
Competence:
structure,
coherence,
clarity and
fluency both
orally and in writing
(p. 44)
Clarity,
fluency, and
coherence in
written expression
and oral
expression
(H8)
*Progression: AA: can communicate about their understanding, skills and activities with peers, supervisors, and clients; MA = can
communicate their conclusions and the knowledge and rational underpinning these, to specialist and non-specialist audiences
clearly and unambiguously
IN PRACTICE: COMMUNICATION
SKILLS - COURSES AND
TRANSCRIPTS
Level
Descriptors
For individual
courses
Tuning
Differentiates
UK examples
of knowledge and
application
Diploma Supplement
proposal for U.S. – excerpts
on learning
Basic –
introduction p. 58
Threshold vs.
desired outcomes
Apply knowledge to
demonstrate comprehension of
theory p.61
Qualification framework, if
any
Intermediate
(deepen Basic
knowledge)
Relative vs .Absolute
Value of
credits T 53
Develop a distinctive approach
to acquisition of knowledge
Program requirements in
major as objectives, Tuning
type disciplinary
requirements, credit
distributions, etc.
Advanced –
strengthening
expertise
Regular vs.
extrachallenging
Programs T54
Generate ideas formulating
responses to well defined and
abstract problems
Markers of student
achievement beyond course
content – research, etc.
Specialized –
subfields that open
up at an advanced
level
Reviewing, consolidating, and
extending knowledge
THE SYSTEM IN PRACTICE:
SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION
SKILLS
FRAMEWORK: COMMUNICATE INFORMATION, IDEAS,PROBLEMS,
SOLUTIONS TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES
SUBJECT: COMMUNICATE BASIC KNOWLEDGE IN COHERENT
WAYS IN DIFFERENT MEDIA
GENERAL: ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH EXPERTS
LEVEL: INTRO, DEEPEN, EXPERTISE
ALSO: THRESHOLD, RELATIVE VALUE, EXTRA-CHALLENGING
DIPLOMA: MARKERS OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
QUALIFICATION
FRAMEWORKS
WHAT DOES EACH LEVEL OF
DEGREE WE AWARD MEAN?
WHAT DOES IT REPRESENT IN
TERMS OF STUDENT
LEARNING?
HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM
LEVELS ABOVE AND BELOW IT?
TOP 3 DEGREE LEVELS
LEVEL 6: Demonstrate mastery and
innovation to solve complex and
unpredictable problems in specialized field
LEVEL 7: Specialized problem-solving skills
required in research and innovation to
develop and integrate new knowledge
LEVEL 8: Most Advanced, including
synthesis and evaluation, to solve critical
problems in research/innovation and extend
knowledge
LEARNING OUTCOMES
1. KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING:
breadth and kind
2. APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE
/UNDERSTANDING: range, selectivity
3. FLUENCY IN USE OF INCREASINGLY
COMPLEX DATA AND INFORMATION
BREADTH AND DEPTH OF TOPICS
COMMUNICATED; RANGE OF
AUDIENCES FOR COMMUNICATION
DEGREE OF AUTONOMY GAINED FOR
SUBSEQUENT LEARNING
IRISH FRAMEWORK
COMPENDIUM, TAB 9, BLUE SHEET,
DISPLAYS GRID OF:
KNOWLEDGE (BREADTH AND KIND)
KNOW-HOW AND SKILL (RANGE,
SELECTIVITY)
COMPETENCE (CONTEXT, ROLE
LEARNING TO LEARN, AND INSIGHT)
WITH LEVEL INDICATORS FOR EACH
LEVEL
CANADIAN FRAMEWORK
COMPENDIUM, TAB 9, YELLOW PAGES
DEGREE DESCRIPTION FOR:
PREPARATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
LENGTH OF PROGRAM
ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS
CANADA, CONT’D
DEGREE-LEVEL STANDARDS FOR:
DEPTH AND BREADTH OF KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE OF METHODOLOGIES AND
RESEARCH
APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
AWARENESS OF LIMITS OF
KNOWLEDGE
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY/AUTONOMY
APPLICATION TO U.S
DO WE ALREADY HAVE A FORMAL
SYSTEM THAT IS MORE FLEXIBLE?
ACCREDITORS:
REQUIRE LEARNING GOALS
USE PEERS TO ADDRESS LEVEL OF
GOALS
REQUIRE GENERAL EDUCATION
STATES SET PROGRAM LENGTH AND
MONITOR OTHER AREAS
TRADITION REGARDING MAJORS
JOHN NICHOLS - AACU
ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT NEEDED,
SHOULD THE U.S. HAVE A
QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK
FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSFER
WITH OTHER COUNTRIES?
WHO WOULD CREATE AND
ENFORCE IT?
DISCIPLINARYASSOCIATIONS
COULD ACCREDITORS MOTIVATE
NATIONAL DISCIPLINARY
ASSOCIATIONS TO DEFINE
LEARNING GOALS AND MEASURES
BY STATING THAT INSTITUTIONS
USING THOSE WOULD BE DEEMED
TO COMPLY WITH STUDENT
LEARNING REQUIREMENTS?
INSTITUTIONS COULD ELECT
WHETHER OR NOT TO USE THEM
DISCIPLINARY ASSOCIATIONS HAVE
EXPERTISE
FACULTY BUY-IN
“ASSESSMENT IN POLITICAL
SCIENCE” (APSA 2009)
“ASSESSMENT IN HISTORY:
(AMERICAN HISTORICAL
ASSOCIATION)
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION –10 GOALS
WWW.APA.ORG/ED/CRITIQUE_GOALS.HTML
COMMUNICATION
INFORMATION AND IT
SOCIOCULTURAL AWARENESS
PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
CAREER PLANNING
KNOWLEDGE BASE
RESEARCH METHODS
CRITICAL THINKING
APPLICATION
VALUES
NEXT STEPS
THERE MAY BE FOUNDATION GRANT
MONEY AVAILABLE. REGIONAL
ACCREDITORS HAVE DISCUSSED
PARTICIPATING IN A PROJECT WITH
A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
INVOLVED.
WHAT, IF ANYTHING, SHOULD
MSCHE DO?