Henrik Toft Jensen Roskilde University 24 February 2011

1. How to Cope With the European Standards andGuidelines at the Institutional Level and How toBenefit from the Standards Henrik Toft Jensen Roskilde University 24 February 2011

2. EUA activities in QA (in short) • Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) • Workshops and other events on management etc. • Projects e.g.: • Quality Culture, 2002-2006 • Creativity project, 2006-2007 • Quality Assurance for the Higher Education Change Agenda (QAHECA), 2008-2009 • Examining Quality Culture in Higher Education Institutions (EQC), 2009-2011 • European Quality Assurance Forum • Co-operation with ENQA, ESU and EURASHE (E4 group)

3. European Level Developments in QA • The Berlin Communiqué in 2003 marked a major turning point by stating that • “consistent with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself” and • Defined key characteristics of national QA systems • European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) adopted in 2005 • European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) established in 2008

4. IEP coordinated evaluation in Slovakia 2005-2006 • Strategic challenge identified: “As part of the Bologna reforms and for the benefit of its own overall improvement, the Slovak higher education system, like others in Europe, is facing the challenge of introducing a more trust-based and more systematic approach to quality assurance within higher education institutions and of moving away from methodologies of external control of minimal standards toward internal improvement-oriented processes of quality enhancement. These processes require some resources, however, to address the need for improvement wherever it is identified. Undoubtedly, such a change will be vital for building self reinforcing quality culture at Slovak higher education institutions.”

5. IEP coordinated evaluation in Slovakia 2005-2006 • Strategic challenge identified: “Having committed itself to following the European Standards and Guidelines, the Slovak quality evaluation system will have to address the challenge of shifting the focus from a central quality control system to a university-based quality development system and of establishing a more coherent quality culture in higher education institutions while reducing the control mechanisms that currently dominate the system.”

6. IEP coordinated evaluation in Slovakia 2005-2006 • Observations related to internal QA: • increasing awareness of the importance of internal quality culture • quality monitoring was still largely seen as monitoring of data according to standards introduced by the Accreditation Commission rather than being set by the HEIs themselves. • at most institutions, students complain that there is no feed-back to their evaluation in questionnaires • some institutions or individual faculties within institutions encourage improvements in research performance through performance-based resource allocation • quality development measures for existing staff are also in need of improvement

7. Examining Quality Culture: presentation (1) • An on-going project led by EUA • Project partners German Rectors’ Conference and QAA Scotland • The project period Oct 2009 – Oct 2011 • Co-funded by EC’s LLL programme

8. Examining Quality Culture: presentation (2) • Aims to • Identify internal quality assurance processes in place in HEIs, particular interest to how the institutions have implemented the part of the ESGs part I. • Discuss the dynamics between the development of institutional quality culture and quality assurance processes. • Identify and present good practices in a final report in order to disseminate them. • Two phases of implementation • Survey to map internal QA processes • Interviews for more in-depth discussion -> The following data is based on the survey

9. Results:Strategies and QA structures • 90% have institutional strategic document or equivalent document • 2/3 have a separate institutional QA policy statement • 1/4 have its quality statement included in the strategic plan • Large variety of organisational structures, no typical solution • QA system in teaching and learning, in particular: • 2/3 institution-specific but follows national QA frameworks and guidelines • 1/4 tailor-made to the institution's needs and does not apply any ready-made model • whereas less than 10 % mentioned that it applies a ready-made model such as ISO, EFQM, and CAF

10. Result: Introducing QA system or equivalent

11. Results: Coverage • Activities covered by quality assurance processes: • Teaching and learning nearly 100% • Research 80 % • Service to society50 % • Student support services75 % • Governance and administration of the institution66 % • Tendency not to recognise all QA related processes within a HEI as quality assurance processes (may be a quality culture)

12. Results: Responsabilities and stakeholders’ involvement • In 66% the senior leadership takes the lead in the process • In those cases 33% where the leadership was not leading the process, it still somehow follows-up the process. • Half of the respondents have no committee responsible for quality assurance • Curriculum design often responsibility of a working group or committee • When such committee exist, they involve students in 50% of cases

13. Results: The feedback loop • 70% of respondents use student surveys as one of the means to monitor students’ perceptions of the teaching they receive. Among them: • 90% take the results into account in the assessment of teaching staff. • 60% of the respondents state that students who participated in a survey are informed about the outcomes and the resulting actions taken • 5% make the information on teachers’ aptitudes and performance publicly available.

14. Results: Information systems • 95 % have a centralised information system in place • Student progression and success rates: 90% • Teacher-student ratio per faculty/department/institute or in the respective faculty/department/institute: 65% • Tracking graduates' employment: 40% • Students' satisfaction with their programmes: 50% • Profile of the student population (e.g., age, gender, education background, socio-cultural background...): 80%  • Available learning resources and, when applicable, their costs:45% • Other (such as the institution's own performance indicators):10%

15. Results: Teaching and Learning • The curriculum typically designed by a committee or a working group. • A variety of processes for monitoring it exist. • More than 90% of HEIs have developed learning outcomes, but they do not all make them publicly available. 40% measure the student workload needed to reach the described learning outcomes through student surveys. • Student assessment methods and criteria are usually made transparent to students. • HEIs offer learning resources, but they do not all systematically monitor or evaluate them.

16. Further reflection • Trends, key perceptions • QA systems are largely in place • developing a quality culture takes time and effort • Participation of all stakeholders still demands attention • HEIs seem to have more information available on the input and on what is offered, than on the output • Promoting a better and more efficient use of it may better contribute to strategic planning and foster continuous improvement. • Thus, institutions have been responding to the increased demand for quality although, it is still work in progress

17. European standarts • HEI need to have policy and procedures for Quality Assurance • HEI need to have formal mechanisms for approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards. • Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures • HEI should have ways of satisfying themselves that the teaching staff is qualified and competent • HEI should ensure that the resources available for the support of the student are adequate and appropriate • HEI should collect ,analyse and use relevant information for the management of their programmes and other activities • HEI should up to date information about their programes

18. European standarts • Use of internal quality assurance and procedures • Development of external quality assurance processes • Anny formal decision made as a result of an external quality assurance activity should be based on explicit published criteria • All external quality assurance processes should be designs to ensure their fitness for purpose • Evaluation reports be published and written in a style which is clear for the leadership • Follow up procedures should be in place • Quality assurance procedures should be used in a cyclical basis • Benchmarking activities with other institutions should be carried on also at a cyclical basis

19. How make most out of the ESGs? • When developing processes the starting point should be the institutional mission and profile • Adopt an all-encompassing approach to QA adapted to your institution’s needs • Ensure the link between strategic management and QA processes • Adopt quality enhancement approach to QA • The goal should be an institutional quality culture supported by the QA processes, not the processes themselves (as emphasised in the ESGs) • Use the ESGs as a set of generic principles guiding the work, not merely as a checklist

20. Further information • www.eua.be Thank you for your attention