1 / 23

Quality Assurance in the Bologna Process

Quality Assurance in the Bologna Process. Fiona Crozier QAA f.crozier@qaa.ac.uk. Structure of presentation. Brief overview of the Bologna process The Berlin Mandate General overview of ENQA Projects (TEEP/QCS) Conclusion. Brief overview of the Bologna process. Its aims:

hyman
Télécharger la présentation

Quality Assurance in the Bologna Process

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. Quality Assurance in the Bologna Process Fiona Crozier QAA f.crozier@qaa.ac.uk

  2. Structure of presentation • Brief overview of the Bologna process • The Berlin Mandate • General overview of ENQA • Projects (TEEP/QCS) • Conclusion

  3. Brief overview of the Bologna process Its aims: • Adopt a system of easily readable and comparable degrees • Adopt a system with 2 main cycles (undergraduate/graduate) • Establish a system of credits such as ECTS

  4. Brief overview of the Bologna process 2 • Promote mobility by overcoming obstacles • Promote European co-operation in quality assurance • Promote European dimensions in higher education

  5. Berlin 2003 Intermediate priorities: • Quality assurance • The two-cycle degree system • Recognition – degrees and periods of study

  6. Quality assurance • A definition of the responsibilities of the bodies and institutions involved • Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment, external review, participation of students and the publication of results • A system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures, international participation, co-operation and networking

  7. The Berlin Mandate • At the European level, Ministers call upon ENQA through its members, in cooperation with the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB, to develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance, to explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies, and to report back through the Follow-up group to Ministers in 2005. Due account will be taken of the expertise of other quality assurance associations and networks.

  8. ENQA “ENQA is a European Network to disseminate information, experiences, good practices and new developments in the field of quality assessment and quality assurance in higher education between interested parties: public authorities, higher education institutions and quality assurance agencies.” ENQA Website

  9. ENQA 2 • 42 members from Austria – UK • Runs workshops and seminars on current themes • Why am I telling you about it? • Because the Berlin Communiqué entrusted 2 tasks to regarding quality assurance to ENQA

  10. The Berlin Mandate 2 • This has translated into 2 working parties • one is drafting a top level set of generic standards for assurance of quality in European HE & brief guidelines to explain the significance and importance of standards • One working out ENQA membership criteria & the internal QA processes of QA organisations & proposals for cyclical review at QA agencies • To report to Bergen Meeting in 2005

  11. Individual projects • To help work towards the Bergen meeting and to feed into the working groups • Transnational European Evaluation Project • Quality Convergence Study

  12. TEEP – objectives of the project • To test and develop further a method for transnational evaluation on the basis of an evaluation process and common criteria in 3 different subject fields • To add a European dimension to the evaluation of programmes and the continuous quality enhancement of higher education • Contribute to greater awareness, transparency and compatibility within European Higher Education

  13. TEEP- actors in the project • The European Commission: Initiative & funding • ENQA: Organisation of the project • 3 ENQA member organisations, AQU, EVA & QAA: responsible for the evaluation of 1 programme area respectively • 3 higher education study programmes: Physics (5), History (5) and Veterinary Science (4): totalling up to 11 countries • 3 Socrates / Erasmus thematic Networks: Physics (EUPEN), Veterinary Education (ICEVE) and History (CLIOHNET)

  14. TEEP – premises of the project • Evaluation scope: first degree/bachelor programmes or equivalent (for veterinary science the full programme is evaluated) • No comparison among the institutions against given standards

  15. TEEP – a focused approach • Educational context • Competences and learning outcomes - criteria • Quality assurance - criteria

  16. TEEP – lessons learned from the project Use of common criteria • Applicability of common criteria depends on their formulation and readability and relation to national accepted thresholds • Criteria have an important role in stimulating and supporting developments where they are appropriate within the national and institutional context

  17. TEEP – lessons learned from the project • Timeframe and budget should be appropriate • Language is a problem • Engage a wider selection of institutions and experts • Network aid to identify experts • The focused approach made comparison across subjects and countries easier • Do not underestimate national context description • Vocabulary needed for competence and QA

  18. TEEP – lessons learned from the project • Differences in national education culture and systems • Differences in quality assurance cultures • Different attitudes towards quality assurance • Different terminology in educational systems and in quality assurance • To find the appropriate methods both weighing the international demands for transparency and the national demands for accountability and quality development.

  19. The Quality Convergence StudyThe Project: Key points Objective: To evaluate the possibilities for convergence of national QA systems through better understanding of those systems Context: No understanding = no action in terms of the European plan As yet, no systematic evaluation of why individual national systems operate in the way they do

  20. The Quality Convergence StudyThe Project: Key points 2 • Context (Cont..): More understanding of individual systems will help move things forward • Outcomes: Self descriptions for each participating agency A final report outlining areas of possible convergence and highlighting issues

  21. Conclusion • Diversity of histories of QA in Europe • Diversity of purposes for QA in Europe • Diversity of QA models in Europe • Diversity of methods in Europe • Diversity of outcomes • Diversity of words

  22. Accreditation in the UK • NOT a universal term • Applies to those programmes which are governed by a professional, statutory or regulatory body – e.g. Law, Engineering • Programme can be approved by HEI – students can graduate BUT • Cannot practice profession if programme is not accredited by relevant body • Accreditation process • Can continue beyond education

  23. The Bologna process is.. • Trying to make sense of all this by developing a European dimension to QA through the tasks given to ENQA in the Berlin Mandate • A diversity of futures?

More Related