Slide 1

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 2

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 3

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 4

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 5

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 6

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 7

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 8

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 9

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 10

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 11

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 12

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 13

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 14

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 15

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 16

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 17

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 18

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 19

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 20

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 21

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 22

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 23

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 24

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 25

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 26

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 27

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 28

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 29

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 30

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 31

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 32

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 33

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 34

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 35

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize


Slide 36

Dublin City University:
International Engagement,
Implementing Bologna
and contribution to MTE-EUA
programme development
Dr. Noel Murphy

Overview:
• DCU’s commitment to International Engagement
• Overview of the Bologna Process
• Implementing Bologna in Ireland
– the National Framework for Qualifications
– DCU’s Academic Framework for Innovation

• MTE-EUA project
– DCU’s involvement and contribution

Dublin

DCU’s International Commitment:
Through its mission to transform lives and societies through education,
research and innovation, DCU will ... act as an agent for social, cultural
and economic progress at the individual, national and international
levels.
– Almost 2,000 international students from 114 countries attend DCU.
– 30% of our undergraduate student body are non-traditional
(Mature, Access, Disability, Distance Learners).
Over the next five years we will ...
– Enrich the educational offerings for our postgraduate students by
expanding the provision of Structured, Enterprise-Academic and
International Joint programmes
– Enhance our translational research impact by developing significant
partnerships with national and international institutions
– Establish a small, dynamic, global network of partner universities in
regions prioritised in DCU’s Internationalisation Strategy ... Including
the Middle East

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
2
5
60

DCU Coord
1

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

1

23

Programme or Initiative 2010-2012
COST Action
Erasmus Academic Network
Erasmus Multilateral Projects
Erasmus Mundus Doctoral programme
EU CIP
EU Leonardo
EU Lifelong Learning
EU Public Health Agency
European Space Agency
FP7 Coordination and Support Action
FP7-ENV
FP7-HEALTH
FP7-ICT
FP7-IDEAS-ERC
FP7-NMP
FP7-PEOPLE
FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY
FP7-SEC
FP7-SME
IAPP
Integration Fund Community Actions 2009
INTERREG
Tempus

DCU Coord
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
11
1
3
16
4
1
2
1
1
European
2
5
60

1
1

1

1
1
1
1
12
2

University of Crete
1 Cranfield University
University Association
Linnaeus University
Yarmouk University
23

Bologna Process − EHEA by 2010
–
–
–
–
–

System of comparable degrees in three cycles (ug/gr/dr)
System of Credit Transfer (ECTS) + Diploma Supplement
International Transparency and Recognition
International Mobility of Learners, Graduates & Staff
European co-operation and standards in QA:
– Evaluation of programmes + institutions, including
internal assessment, external review, participation of
students and publication of results
– Develop national frameworks of qualifications
– Increase competitiveness,
– but balance with strengthened social cohesion and
reducing social and gender inequalities both at national
and at European level

Why have a Qualifications Framework?
■ For learners, it clarifies the status of a qualification and how to progress
from one qualification to another;

■ For education and training providers it defines the standards, in terms of
knowledge, skills and competencies, to be achieved by persons
qualifying for an award;
■ For employers and other stakeholders it describes the knowledge, skills
and competences which can be expected from holders of a qualification.
■ Promotes coherence, comparability and transparency across the
education system,
■ Encourages access, transfer and progression through the system,

■ Develops lifelong learning opportunities and develops individual and
collective human potential.

National Framework of Qualifications
The mechanism for implementing above goals
– Defines and describes the Learning Outcomes at each
level in strands:
• Knowledge – Breadth; Kind
• Know-how and skill - Range; Selectivity
• Competence - Context; Learning to Learn; Insight

– Defines relationship between levels by Learning Outcomes
– Positions certain key qualifications at the appropriate level
on basis of their learning outcomes
– Legislative Dimension
– Widespread consultation, research and development
– Had to be acceptable to and usable by stakeholders with
diverse philosophies of learning

Irish Framework Architecture
■ A single framework encompassing all post first-level awards
made in the State;
■ 10 levels in the Framework:
• second level: 1 to 6;
• higher education, further education and training: 6-10
■ The Framework is “outcomes based”:
• Each level is defined by a Level Indicator

- a series of statements defining the knowledge, skills and
competences to be acquired by the learner for an award
at that level.

Irish Framework Architecture

Irish Framework Architecture
An Award Type is a class of named awards (e.g. Masters Degrees) at the
same level sharing common features.

An award-type may be Major, Minor, Special-purpose or Supplemental.
Major award-types are the principal class(es) of awards made at each level
and are characterised by a broad range of learning outcomes
Minor award-types do not have the full range of learning outcomes
associated with the major award-type(s) at that level.
Special purpose award-types are made for specific, narrow purposes,
Supplemental award-types recognise the acquisition of additional or
updated knowledge, skills and competencies.
Level

Award Type

10

Doctoral Degree and Higher Doctorate

9

Masters Degree and Postgraduate Diploma

8

Honours Bachelor Degree and Higher Diploma

NFQ and the Irish Universities
• Later, slower adoption than HETAC/FETAC where it was
mandated by legislation
• Significant difficult issues, especially wrt postgraduate
qualifications level 8/9,
− Higher/Graduate Diplomas in particular

• 2007 – Framework Implementation Network
– IUA; NQAI, Universities, Linked Colleges, etc:
3 Working Groups:
– Disciplinary Learning Outcomes
– Assessment of Learning Outcomes
– Award Naming and Titling

• 2012 – NFQ now universally used by institutions/ educators/
learners

• New overarching body: Qualifications & Quality Ireland (QQI)

Learning Outcomes

• Clearly identify what a learner can
demonstrate as a result of successfully
completing a part of a learning programme
• Shift of focus from Teaching to Learning
• Challenges to teaching and especially
assessment approaches

Teaching vs Learning

I taught
Snoopy
to whistle

I don’t hear
him!
I said I taught him,
I didn’t say
he’d learned!

Irish Framework Architecture
The Level Indicators are defined under eight strands:

1. knowledge - breadth
2. knowledge - kind
3. know-how and skill - range

4. know-how and skill - selectivity
5. competence - context
6. competence - role

7. competence – learning to learn
8. competence - insight.

Level Indicators eg. Level 8 vs 9
Knowledge – Breadth: Level 8
An understanding of the theory, concepts
and methods pertaining to a field (or
fields) of learning

Knowledge – Breadth: Level 9
A systematic understanding of
knowledge, at, or informed by, the
forefront of a field of learning

Knowledge - Kind: Level 8

Knowledge - Kind: Level 9

Detailed knowledge and understanding in
one or more specialised areas, some of it
at the current boundaries of the field(s)

A critical awareness of current
problems and/or new insights,
generally informed by the forefront of
a field of learning

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 8

Know-how and Skill - Range: Level 9

Demonstrate mastery of a complex and
specialised area of skills and tools; use
and modify advanced skills and tool to
conduct closely guided research,
professional or advanced technical activity

Demonstrate a range of standard and
specialised research or equivalent tools
and techniques of enquiry

The Pivotal Role of Assessment
• For students, assessment defines the curriculum
– Certain things may be seen as more important than other simply
because they are easier to assess
– For academics they sometimes feel forced to ‘teach to the test’

• Formative and Summative assessment have a role:
– Assessment as/for learning Vs assessment of learning

“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of
poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to
graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment”.
(Boud, 1995)

The Pivotal Role of Assessment

Intended Student
Learning

• Learning &
Teaching
Activities
Designed to
meet LOs

• Intended
Learning
Outcomes

• Assessment
Methods

Designed to
Assess LOs

If assessment drives the curriculum then we must
make sure that it drives the right things! (Biggs, 1999)

DCU: Academic Framework for Innovation

• Strategic Plan mandated wide-ranging
Curriculum Reform
– Review of the entire degree portfolio
– Flexible student-centred learning

• Implement Bologna/NFQ
– Alignment with appropriate NFQ level
– Comparability/Mobility (Learning Outcomes)
– Flexibility

The DCU AFI Process
• Review and redesign all Programmes to
use Learning Outcomes
– All programme outcomes now rewritten
– AFI Fellows to guide local process
– All modules rewritten by May ’09
– Still need work
• On assessment
• Programme Review

• New Marks & Standards
• Upgrade to MIS

Implementation used in DCU
Top Down Approach
Mainly involves Programme Chairs initially
Module coordinators involved at later stage

NFQ
Descriptors

Programme
Descriptors

Module
Descriptors

Generic Descriptors
NFQ Level Descriptors

Disciplinary Programme Outcomes
Other Programme Information

Learning Outcomes
Coursework
Assessment
Indicative Syllabus

More
coherent
approach
than
bottom
up

DCU Process: Support for Developers
•

‘Learning Outcomes Week’:
– Introduction to LO paradigm
– Learning from other institutions
– Role of LOs in student learning
– Events for programme chairs
– Round table discussion:

•

Workshops and clinics

•

Web/print resources

•

Coursebuilder system

•

Debate: “Academic choice and flexibility - friend or
foe”

•

AFI Fellows – one per school/dept

•

Key issues
– Clarity on mandatory requirements vs. autonomy
– Space to debate issues

Working with Professional Organisations
Engineers Ireland
- Also require a Learning Outcome-based approach
- Now requires Masters-level for professional engineer status

Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate
(to a certain standard under 7 headings):

a) Advanced knowledge and understanding of the mathematics, sciences,
engineering sciences and technologies underpinning their branch of
engineering.
b) The ability to identify, formulate, analyse and solve complex engineering
problems.
c) The ability to perform the detailed design of a novel system, component
or process using analysis and interpretation of relevant data .

Working with Professional Organisations
Programmes must enable graduates to demonstrate:
d) The ability to design and conduct experiments and to apply a range of
standard and specialised research (or equivalent) tools and techniques of
enquiry.
e) Understanding of the need for high ethical standards in the practice of
engineering, including the responsibilities of the engineering profession
towards people and the environment.
f) The ability to work effectively as an individual, in teams and in multidisciplinary settings, together with the capacity to undertake lifelong
learning.
g) Ability to communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large.

Working with non-Bologna Systems
NFQ/Bologna introduction in Ireland accompanied by
− Semesterisation and Modularization
− makes mobility of students easier
− biggest remaining difficulty is synchronisation of
academic calendars – even within Ireland
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
- Clearly defined measure of student workload
- Fairly compatible nationally and across EU
- Possible to translate to other approaches such as student
credit hours, but often need to keep both approaches sideby-side

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 1: Internal QA within HEIs

1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance
1.2 Formal mechanisms for Approval, monitoring and periodic review of
programmes and awards
1.3 Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Procedures for QA of teaching staff - qualified and competent.
1.5 Adequate and appropriate Learning resources and student support:
1.6 Institutions should collect, analyse and use relevant information for
the effective management of their programmes/activities.
1.7 Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and
objective quantitative and qualitative information, about the
programmes and awards they offering.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 2: External QA of HE

2.1 External QA procedures should examine effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes
2.2 Published Aims and objectives of QA processes should determine
their design.
2.3 Formal external QA decisions should be based on explicit published
criteria applied consistently.
2.4 External QA Processes should be fit for purpose.
2.5 Published Reports should be clear and readily accessible to its
intended readership.
2.6 QA Follow-up should be clear and implemented consistently.
2.7 External QA should be on a clearly defined cycle
2.8 There should be System-wide analyses.

Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the EHEA
Part 3: Standards for external QA agencies
3.1 External QA agencies should take into account the presence and
effectiveness of the external quality assurance processes.
3.2 Agencies should be formally recognised and comply with any relevant
legislation.
3.3 Agencies should undertake external QA at institutional or programme level)
on a regular basis.
3.4 Agencies should have adequate and proportional resources
3.5 Agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives for their work,
contained in a publicly available statement.
3.6 Agencies should be independent of third parties such as HEIs, ministries or
other stakeholders.
3.7 The processes, criteria and procedures used by agencies should be predefined and publicly available.
3.8 Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability.

What’s MTE-EUA about?
Design, development, implementation, accreditation
of three taught Masters programmes
in Telecommunications Engineering
at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
• Relevant to local market needs
• Internationally comparable and compatible

• Building on EU developments in Higher Education

How did it come about?
Visit to DCU by YU President and two Deans - Nov 2009

•

Send Masters/PhD students to English-speaking universities in Europe

•

Jordan academics/HE system quite US-centric

•

Interest in taught postgraduate and industrially relevant programmes

•

Stability of the country was a factor that interested us

Yarmouk – one of the two major public universities in Jordan
− New university like DCU, with programmes geared toward industry
− Jan 2010: asked to contribute to Planning Tempus project
–

to reform an existing MSc. program in Wireless Communications Engineering

–

to introduce new tracks in related fields

Why are we involved?
School of Electronic Engineering, DCU
• operating a flexible taught postgraduate programme since 1990
• specialism in Telecoms Engineering since 1996/97
• collaborative version with Wuhan University in China since 2006
• involved in a curriculum reform Tempus project in the late-1990s
organised by Poznan University of Technology, Poland
– a positive experience that led to subsequent research collaboration

“… apart from the possible benefits of collaboration, we
thought it would be useful to us (DCU) to ensure that
we also achieve the same objectives of relevance,
practicality and quality to which they (YU) aspire.”

DCU’s Input to Tempus MTE-EUA
Knowledge of an NFQ, based on Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and experience of QA/QI procedures
Particular expertise in Telecoms and Management
Experience in the development of Masters Level Programmes

Experience in Accreditation of Engineering programmes for
Professional (Chartered) Engineer recognition
Links between Learning Outcomes approach and assessment

IT systems for QA and student support

And who else is involved?
Strengths in
• International collaboration
• Quality Assurance processes
• Experience with international IET Accreditation
Strengths in
• Curriculum development
• Teaching methodologies and study models
• Industry needs; Surveying methodology
Strengths in
• Industry-oriented programs
• Industrial needs in the telecommunication sector
• Engineering Management and Marketing
Strengths in
• Project management; Market analysis & Surveying
• Technical expertise
• Management IT System Development

What has it achieved so far?
Three industry-relevant Masters programmes in Telecoms and Telecoms
management designed – teaching materials being developed;
Underpinned by market research for industry, student and society needs;
Solid understanding of Bologna-type educational structures by JO Partners
(credits, learning outcomes + matched assessment,
layered QA structures and processes);
Trust and good working relationship built across all of the project partners
Quality Control structures
• implemented for the project
• designed for the operating programmes
Website and Documentation management systems to support the project
Information System for QC on programme well-progressed
Professional Accreditation process by the IET well underway.

What will be the durable benefits?
Mutual respect and understanding between the participants
• New personal networks in a new region for us
Compatible programmes and modules
• will allow the exchange of expertise, staff, students and teaching
materials between Jordan and the EU
Professional Development of academic staff of JO partners
A network of collaboration with EU institutions for JO partners
Strong links between JO Partners and local Industry in Jordan
Improvements in our programmes and processes in DCU
… and more that we are only beginning to realize