1 / 46

4. New developments in European Higher Education Area (1)

4. New developments in European Higher Education Area (1). O UTLINE : 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in the new decade. 4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education. 4.2.1. Transparency through harmonization

aelan
Télécharger la présentation

4. New developments in European Higher Education Area (1)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 4. New developments in European Higher Education Area (1) OUTLINE: 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in the new decade. 4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education.4.2.1. Transparency through harmonization 4.2.2. Classification4.2.2. Ranking 4.3. Quality assurance

  2. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (2) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020: Quality Assurance (Kvaliteedikindlustus) Excellence must be pursued at all levels of higher education in order to properly address the challenges of the new era (2010-2020). Excellence requires constant focus on quality based on and further developed with reference to the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG).- http://www.eqar.eu/application/criteria.html- http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso - http://www.ekka.archimedes.ee/kvaliteediagentuur/euroopa-kvaliteedi- agentuuride-register

  3. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (3) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 1): (2) Lifelong learning (Elukestev õpe) widening participation shall be achieved through lifelong learning as an integral part of the education systems. Lifelong learning implies that qualifications may be obtained through flexible learning paths inc. part-time studies, as well as work-based trajectory; the implementation of lifelong learning policies requires strong partnerships between authorities, higher education institutions, students, employers and employees. The Charter for Lifelong Learning (Elukestva õppe harta) developed by European University Association provides useful input for defining such partnerships. (http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/EUA_Charter_Eng_LY.pdf) .

  4. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (4) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 2): Successful policies for lifelong-learning will include:- basic principles and procedures of recognition of prior learning and be supported by adequate organisational structure and funding;- development of national qualification frameworks requiring continued coordination at the level of the EHEA and with the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (Euroopa Kvalifikatsiooniraamistik Elukestva Õppe Valdkonnas). (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm)

  5. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (5) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 3) (3) Employability (Tööhõive) With labour markets increasingly relying on higher skills level and transversal competences higher education should equip students with knowledge, skills and competences they need throughout their professional lives. Raising initial qualifications, as well as maintaining and renewing a skilled workforce will foster employability. Cooperation between higher education institutions, social partners and students allow institutions to be more responsive to employers’ needs and employers to better understand the institutional perspective. Higher education institutions together with governmentsand employers shall improve the provision, accessibility and quality of their careers and employment related guidance services to students and alumni.

  6. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (6) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 4): (4) Student-centred learning (Üliõpilaskeskne õppimine) Student-centred learning requires new approaches to teaching and learning and curriculum focused more clearly on the learner in all three cycles. Curricular reform will thus be an ongoing process leading to high quality, flexible and more individually tailored education paths. Academics in close cooperation with student representatives and employers will continue to develop international descriptors, learning outcomes and reference points for a growing number of subject areas.

  7. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (7) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 5) (5) Education, research and innovation (Haridus, teadus ja innovatsioon) Higher education should be based at all levels on state of the art research and development Doctoral programmes should provide high quality disciplinary research and increasingly be complemented by inter-disciplinary and inter-sectorial programmes Cooperation among institutions should be consolidated through the awarding of joint doctoral degrees The number of people with research competence should increase in view of the further development and integration of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and European Research Area (ERA)

  8. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (8) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 6) (6) International openness (Rahvusvaheline avatus) The attractiveness and openness of European higher education will be highlighted by joint European actions – a network of national contact points will be set up. Transnational education should be opened by the guidelines and standards for quality assurance as applicable within European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and as in line with UNESCO/OECD Guidelines for Quality provision in Cross-Border Higher Education.

  9. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (9) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 7) Mobility (Mobiilsus) Mobility of students , early stage researchers and staff, strengthens the academic and cultural internationalisation of European higher education. Mobility encourages linguistic pluralism, thus underpinning the multilingual tradition of EHEA In 2020, at least 20% of those graduating in the countries of the EHEA should have been mobile during their studies. Moreover, also by 2020 there shall be an increase of 20% of incoming students from non-EHEA countries.

  10. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (10) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 8) (7) Mobility (Mobiilsus) (cntd) Within each of the three cycles of higher education opportunities for mobility shall be integrated in the structure of all degree programmes, thus creating “mobility windows”. Joint programmes and degrees shall become more common practice. Flexible study paths and active information policies, full recognition of study achievements, study support and the full portability of grants and loans are necessary requirements. Attractive working conditions and career paths, as well as open recruitment are necessary to attract highly qualified teachers and researchers to higher education institutions. Career structures should be adopted to facilitate mobility of staff and early stage researchers.

  11. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (11) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 9) (8) Funding (Finantseerimine) Higher education institutions have gained greater autonomy along with rapidly growing expectations to be responsive to social needs and to be accountable. Within a framework of public responsibility recognizing that public funding remains a priority, the diversification of funding sources should be sought as an opportunity to guarantee further sustainable development of autonomous higher education institutions.

  12. 4.1. The Bologna Process 2020 – the EHEA in the new decade (12) Priorities of the Bologna process 2020 (cntd 10) (9) Data collection and multidimensional transparency tools (Andmete kogumine ja läbipaistvuse multidimensionaalsed vahendid) Improved and enhanced data collection will help monitor progress made in the attainment of the objectives set out and will serve as a basis for both stocktaking (ülevaatus) and benchmarking (võrdlusanalüüs). Policies that take due account of the variety of missions of higher education shall be further developed . The key to this is the development of adequate and reliable transparency tools. Classification of higher education institutions should be multi-dimensional designed in a way that helps institutions to develop profiles that emphasize one or more of the main missions of higher education.

  13. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (13).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education Transparency is an attribute of an entity (subjekt, entiteet) which allows the understanding of that entity through the provision of relevant, reliable and valid information. The major objective of transparency instruments is to offer relevant, reliable and valid information to stakeholder about levels of diversity in higher education systems.So far such instruments are only available to a limited extent in higher education on a global scale.

  14. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (14).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 1) In European higher education a distinction can be made between four instrumental areas that intend to enhance the transparency of diversity.(1) Harmonization(2) Classification(3) Ranking(4) Quality assurance

  15. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (15).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 2) Some important definitions: Diversity(Mitmekesisus)  a concept indicating the level of variety of entities (entiteet, subjekt) within a system Differentiation (Eristumine)  a process in which new entities emerge in a system Transparency (Läbipaistvus)  an attribute of an entity which allows the understanding of that entity through the provision of relevant, reliable and valid information.

  16. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (16).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 3) Advantages of Diversity: Offers better access for a wider variety of students Provides more mobility through multiple modes of entry and forms of transfer Better meets the diverse needs of the labour market Permits the crucial combination of elite and mass higher education Increases the effectiveness of higher education institutions (institutional specialisation) Offers opportunities for experimentation

  17. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (17).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 4) There exist 7 categories of diversity*: Systemic diversity (refers to differences in institutional type, size and control ); Structural diversity (refers to institutional differences resulting from historical and legal foundations); Programmatic diversity (relates to the degree level, degree area, comprehensiveness, mission and emphasis of programmes and services provided by institutions). ----------------* Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  18. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (18).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 5) There exist 7 categories of diversity (cntd): (4) Procedural diversity (describes differences in the ways in which teaching, research and/or services are provided by institutions ). (5) Reputational diversity (communicates the perceived differences in institutions, based on status and prestige) (6) Constituential (tarbijalik) diversity (alludes to differences in studentsserved and other constituents in the institutions e.g. faculty, administration) (7) Value and climate diversity (is associated with differences in social environment and culture)

  19. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (19).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 6) In European Higher Education Area the following concepts of diversity are used: Institutional diversity – refers to the differences between higher education institutions Programmatic diversity – refers to the differences between programmes offered Vertical diversity – addresses the differences between higher education institutions in terms of (academic) prestige, reputation and performance. Horizontal diversity – is assumed to regard differences in institutional missions and profiles * ----------------- *Teichler, U. (2007). Higher Education Systems, Conceptual Frameworks, Comparative Perspectives, Empirical Findings. Rotterdam: Sense.

  20. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (20).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 7) 4.2.1. Transparency through harmonisation (relevant to Bologna policy context): The three-cycle degree system The European Credit Transfer System (In which courses are described in a standardized fashion, workload is divided into 60 EC) European qualification frameworks (EQF) (Which are being operationalized in national qualification frameworks’ defining general level descriptors. These can be complemented through voluntary adherence to more content oriented descriptors).

  21. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (21).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 8) 4.2.2. Classification (of higher education institutions): Classification group entities by similarity based on empirical data, so they are aimed to horizontal diversity. The best known higher education institutions classification is the US Carnegie Classification ( www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications) What is Classification:- instrument to group higher education institutions- characterize similarities and differences- is based on the actual conditions and activities of institutions

  22. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (22).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 9) 4.2.2. Classification (cntd) Functions of Classifications: • Transparency tool (for various stakeholders (huvigrupid) : • Higher education institutions: instrument for institutional strategies (mission, profile) • Students: choices • Business and industry: partnership and relationships • Policy makers: base for governmental policies • Researchers and Analysts: tool for research • Instrument for better ranking

  23. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (23).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 10) 4.2.2. Classification: (cntd) European Classification: U-Map (http://www.u-map.eu) U-Map (as the European Commission’s tool to enhance transparency) is: Based on empirical data Based on a multi-actor and multi-dimensional perspective Non-hierarchial Relevant for all higher education institutions in Europe Descriptive (kirjeldav), not prescriptive (ettekirjutav) Based on objective, reliable and verifiable data Parsimonious (säästev) regarding extra data collection

  24. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (24).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 11) 4.2.2. Classification (cntd) U-Map dimensions: Teaching and learning profile Student profile Research involvement Knowledge exchange International orientation Regional engagement

  25. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (25).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 12)4.2.2. Classification(cntd):

  26. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (26).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 13) 4.2.2. Classification(cntd): U-Map classification classes: 6 dimensions 23 indicators (each dimension is characterised by 3-5 indicators) Each indicator is reduced to a small number (usually 4) classes/categories defined by empirically determined cut-off points (be revised every three years) Example: Dimension: Teaching and learning profile Indicator: Degree level focus Classes: - Doctoral focus (>= 5% doctorate degrees) - Master focus (>= 25% master degrees) - Bachelor focus (> = 40% bachelor degrees) - sub-degree focus (>= 5% sub-degree qualifications)

  27. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (27).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd14)4.2.2. Classification (cntd)

  28. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (28).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 15) 4.2.3. Ranking (Järjestamine, reastamine) Contrary to classification ranking focus on the transparency of vertical diversity In global perspective the focus of ranking has largely been on research performance, e.g. :Shanghai Jiao Tong University Ranking: “Academic Ranking of World Class Universities”, ARWU) (http://www.arwu.org) The Times Higher Education (THE) Supplement (THES) World Ranking (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk) Centre for Science and Technology Studes (CWTS) at Leiden University Ranking (http://www.cwts.leidenuniv.nl) QS World University Rankings (http://www.topuniversities.com)

  29. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (29).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 16)4.2.3. Ranking (cntd)The ARWU rankings are based on the following criteria and indicators:

  30. 4.New developments in European Higher Education 2Area (30).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 17 ) 4.2.3. Ranking (cntd) The THES rankings are based on the following criteria: CriteriaWeight Academic Peer Review Employer Review  50% Citations per Faculty 20%(Derived from data supplied by Scopus (http://www.scopus.com)) Student/Faculty ratio 20% International Faculty Ratio 5% International Student Ratio 5%

  31. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (31).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 18) 4.2.3. Ranking (cntd) Limitations regarding existing rankings: Concentration of the few measurable dimensions creates impression among stakeholders that ranking addresses the institutions’ quality Production of misleading averages to whole institution (uni-dimensional and aggregated ranking hide significant differences) Bibliometric indicators usually used (Thomson Reuters, Scopus, mainly journals) disfavour universities that are strong in fields other than physical sciences or that do not have medical schools The set of journals in the data bases used is biased against non-English speaking countries Rankings are implicitly used to assess the performance of national higher education systems – they implicitly refer to the Anglo-Saxon model of research organization

  32. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (32).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 19) 4.2.3. Ranking (cntd) The Berlin Principles on ranking of Higher education Institutions :16principles of good ranking practice (2006): APurpose & Goal of Rankings Be one of a number of diverse approaches to the assessment of higher education inputs, processes and outputs. Be clear about their purpose and their target groups (Compare similar and comparable institutions, programmes) Recognize the diversity of institutions and take the different missions and goals of institution into account Provide clarity about the range of information sources for rankings and the messages of each source generates Specify the linguistic, cultural, economic and historical contexts of the educational systems being ranked

  33. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (33).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 20) 4.2.3. Ranking: The Berlin Principles (cntd) B Design and Weighting of Indicators Be transparent regarding the methodology used for creating the rankings Choose indicators according to their relevance and validity Measure outcomes in preference to inputs whenever possible Make the weights assigned to different indicators (if used) prominent and limit changes to them C Collection and Processing of Data Pay due attention to ethical standards and the good practice recommendations articulated in these Principles Use audited and verifiable data whenever possible

  34. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (34).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 21) 4.2.3. Ranking: The Berlin Principles (cntd) D Collection an Processing Data (cntd) Include data that are collected with proper procedures for scientific data collection Apply measures of quality assurance to ranking process themselves Apply organisational measures that enhance the credibility of rankings E Presentation of Ranking Results Provide customer with clear understanding of all of the factors used to develop a ranking and offer them a choice in how rankings are displayed Be compiled in a way that eliminates or reduces errors in original data and be organized and published in a way that errors and faults can be corrected

  35. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (35).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 22) 4.2.3.Ranking U-multirank (as the European Commission’s tool to enhance transparency): An international project to design and test the feasibility of a multidimensional global university ranking aims to enhance the transparency of institutional and field-specific (programmatic) diversity. U-Multirank is based on a number of important principles: Multi dimensional: university ranking should not produce a consolidated score but should treat different dimensions (teaching and learning, research etc) separately Multi-level – field specific and institutional rankings

  36. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (36).4.2. Transparency tools in European Higher Education (cntd 23) 4.2.3. Ranking U-Multirank principles (cntd): User-driven: the nature of a university ranking should be determined by its purpose and by the needs of its potential users (students, teachers, administrators, business and industry, public authorities, social partners etc) Diversity: ranking should respect the diversity of higher education institutions and compare only institutions of similar profile Performance-orientation: focus primarily on achieved performance and not on inputs, reputation or descriptive characteristics Context: take into account the linguistic, cultural, economic and historical contexts of different higher education systems

  37. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (37).4.3. Quality Assurance The Bologna Declaration encourages, among other things, the European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies of quality assurance. ENQA: The European Association of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (http://www.enqa.eu) was established in 2000 to promote European cooperation in the field of quality assurance Membership is open to quality agencies in the signatory states of the Bologna Declaration. A total 47 quality agencies and associations of higher education have (by 2012) joined the ENQA. Applicant agency must meet the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in EHEA (http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso) EKKA – Estonian Higher Education Quality Agency (http://www.ekka.archimedes.ee)

  38. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (38). 4.3. Quality Assurance (cntd 1) EQAR European Quality Assurance Register in higher Education (founded in 2008) (http://www.eqar.eu). By 2011 24 quality assurance agencies from 23 countries are included. Founding members of EQAR are:- ESU – European Students’ Union (http://www.esu-online.org)- EUA – European University Association (http://www.eua.be)- EURASHE – European Association of Institutions of Higher Education (http://www.eurashe.eu) Governmental members of EQAR (including Estonian Ministry of Education and Research)

  39. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (39). 4.3. Quality Assurance (cntd 2) EQAR (cntd ): Is a web-based and publicly accessible tool which aims to provide clear and objective information about truthworthy quality assurance agencies operating in Europe. Aims to help to improve the quality of European higher education and promote student mobility by increasing trust between higher education institutions. Provides a means for higher education institutions to choose between the different agencies listed on the register. Inclusion on the EQAR is based on compliance with the standards and guidelines for Quality assurance in EHEA (ESG) (http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso)

  40. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (40). 4.3. Quality Assurance (cntd 3) ESG – Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) are (http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso): related to three cycles (incl. Doctoral studies) of higher education described in Bologna Declaration and are not intended to cover the area of research or general institutional management; Designed to be applicable to all higher education institutions and quality assurance agencies in Europe irrespective to their structure, function and size and the national system in which they are located.

  41. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (41). 4.3. Quality Assurance (cntd 4) The purposesof ESG are: to improve the education available to students in higher education institutions in the EHEA to assist higher education institutions in managing and enhancing their quality and thereby to help to justify their institutional autonomy to form a background for quality assurance agencies in their work to make external quality assurance more transparent and simpler to understand for everybody involved

  42. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (42).4.3. Quality Assurance (cntd 5) The ESG are in three parts: Part 1: ESG for internal quality assurance within higher education institutions. Part2: ESG for external quality assurance in higher education. Part 3: ESG for external quality assurance agencies.

  43. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (43).4.3. Quality Assurance (cntd 6) Part 1 ESG for internal quality assurance within higher education institutions 1.1. Policy and procedures for quality assurance Standard: Guidelines: 1.2. Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards Standard: Institutions should have formal mechanism for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of the programmes and awards. Guidelines: 1.3. Assessment of students. Standard: Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently. Guidelines:

  44. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (44).4.3. Quality Assurance (cntd 7) Part 1. ESG for internal quality assurance within higher education institutions (cntd) 1.4. Quality assurance of teaching staff Standard: Guidelines: 1.5. Learning resources and student support Standard: Guidelines: 1.6. Information systems Standard: Guidelines: 1.7. Public information Standard: Institutions should regularly publish up to date impartial and objective information, both quantitative and qualitative, about programmes and awards they are offering

  45. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (45).4.3. Quality Assurance (cntd 8) Part 2. ESG for external quality assurance of higher education 2.1. Use of internal quality assurance procedures (standard, guidelines) 2.2. Criteria for decision 2.3. Processes fit for purpose Standard: All external quality assurance processes should be designed specifically to ensure their fitness to achieve the aims and objectives set for them. 2.4. Reporting 2.5. Follow-up procedures. 2.6. Periodic reviews. 2.7. System-wide analyses. Standard: Quality assurance agencies should produce from time to time summary reports describing and analysing the general findings of their reviews, evaluations, assessment, etc.

  46. 4.New developments in European Higher Education Area (46).4.3. Quality Assurance (cntd 9) Part3. ESG for external quality assurance agencies. 3.1. Use of external quality assurance procedures for higher education (standard, guidelines) 3.2. Official status 3.3. Activities Standard: Agencies should undertake external quality assurance activities at institutional or programme level on a regular basis. 3.4. Resources 3.5. Mission statement 3.6. Independence Standard: Agencies should be independent to the extent both that they have autonomous responsibility for their operations and that the conclusions and recommendations made in their reports cannot be influenced by third parties, such as higher education institutions, ministries or other stakeholders. 3.7. External quality assurance criteria and processes used by the agencies. 3.8. Accountability procedures Standard: Agencies should have in place procedures for their own accountability (mandatory external peer review of agency’s activities at least once every five years)

More Related